1993 final report of the Joint Legislative Study Committee on Mined Land Reclamation

1993 FINAL REPORT
of the
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Presented to:
Speaker of the House Mark Killian
President of the Senate fohn Greene
December 27, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Background
II. Letter Establishing committee
III. committee Members
IV. Meeting Dates
V. Final Report of committee Recommendations
VI. Draft Legislation
VII. Memo Dated 12/16/93
- Approved Changes to Draft Legislation
VIII. Minutes of Final Meeting
- December 16, 1993
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMlTIEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Background
The Joint Legislative study Committee on Mined Land Reclamation was
established as an ad hoc committee by Speaker of the House, Mark
Killian and President of the Senate, John Greene in August, 1993 to
examine and make recommendations on the reclamation of mined land
in Arizona and the issue of abandoned mines. The committee was
directed to report its findings and recommendations to the Speaker
and President by December 15, 1993.
The committee first met on October 7, 1993 and was given an
overview of the state mining industry from the Arizona Department
of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR) and the Arizona Mining
Association (AMA). The committee also heard from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the State Land
Department and the State Mine Inspector regarding existing mining
regulations. At the conclusion of the October 7 meeting, co­chairman,
Senator Jim Buster appointed a subcommittee consisting of
Senator Buster as chair, Senator Phillips, Senator Hardt,
Representative Conner , Representative Brown and Representative
Kaites. The subcommittee was charged with reporting its
recommendations back to the full committee by early December.
The first meeting of the subcommittee was held on November 15, 1993
and at that time, the committee was presented with a state mined
land reclamation proposal from the Arizona Mining Association
(AMA), which was discussed by the committee. The proposal would
have required ADEQ to administer the program.
The second meeting of the subcommittee was held on December 16,
1993, at which time the subcommittee reviewed and discussed
legislation drafted by Legislative Council based on the proposal
submitted by the AMA at the previous meeting. The one primary
difference was that the mined land reclamation program was to be
administered by the Arizona Department -of Mines and Mineral
Resources, instead of ADEQ. (Attachment A). The subcommittee also
considered a proposal from the State Mine Inspector (on file in the
Secretary of the Senate's Office). The subcommittee recommended the
AMA proposal, including the changes set forth in the memo to the
subcommittee dated 12/16/93.
The full committee met on December 16, 1993. In addition to
considering the report of the subcommittee, the full committee
considered a proposal for a state mined land reclamation program
submitted by the Sierra Club and the Arizona League of Conservation
Voters. The full committee approved the subcommittee' s
recommendations and further recommended that the administrative and
enforcement agency should be determined in the legislative process.
r_~~~;
.~,...>.._----. _. -- -"
Arizona ;.§tatc;.§cnatc
JOHN GREENE
PRESIDENT
W4ocnix, ~~ri~omt
August 5, 1993
The Honorable Jim Buster
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Senator Buster:
I have the pleasure of informing you that Speaker Killian and I have agreed
to form an ad hoc Joint Legislative Study Committee on Mined Land Reclamation,
and I have appointed you to serve as Co-Chair. The Committee shall be charged
with studying the issue of reclamation of mined land in Arizona. The Committee
may further give consideration to the subject of abandoned mines and shall make
recommendations to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives by December 15, 1993, after which time the Committee shall be
terminated.
Speaker Killian and I have appointed the following members to the
Committee:
Senator Buster, Co-Chair
Senator Phillips
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
Senator Hardt
Representat i ve Keegan, Co-Cha i r
Representative Kaites
Representative Conner
Representative Brown
Representative Clark
Thank you for your willingness to serve on this Committee. I look forward
to your report.
JG:mkm
Sincerely,
~~
U~~~~~~reene
President of the Senate
cc: Speaker Mark Killian, Arizona House of Representatives
Susan McJunkin, Senate Research Analyst
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
on
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
MEMBERSHIP:
SENATE MEMBERS:
Senator Jim Buster, Co-Chair
Senator Gus Arzberger
Senator Larry Chesley
Senator A.V. "Bill" Hardt
Senator Ed Phillips
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS:
Representative John Keegan, Co-Chair
Representative Jack Brown
Representative Harry Clark
Representative Pat Conner
Representative John Kaites
MEETING DATES
Thursday, October 7, 1993
Wednesday, November 15, 1993
Subcommittee
Thursday, December 16, 1993
Subcommittee
Thursday, December 16, 1993
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITfEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Recommendation:
Introduce legislation to establish a state Mined Land Reclamation Program, to be
administered and enforced by a state agency yet to be determined. The program should provide
for the reclamation of surface disturbances on private land created by new and existing hard
rock mining and exploration operations. The program should require the filing a reclamation
plan to be approved by the state, which should include feasible reclamation measures to be
undertaken by the owner or operator of the mining unit or exploration operation. The program
should also require the filing of a financial assurance mechanism by the owner or operator in
order to insure the timely completion of reclamation measures. (See Attachments A and B)
NOTE: Allproposals and informational materials submitted to the committee or subcommittee
are on file with the Secretary of the Senate.
MINED LAND RECLAMATION ACT
(12/15193)
Table of Contents
Chapter 5
Mined Land Reclamation
Article 1. Administration
27-901. Definitions 1
27-902. Mined land reclamation section in department of mines and
mineral resources: integration and coordination of pro~ams and
activities 2
27-903. A~eements for coordination with other ~overnmental a~encies
and landowners 3
27-904. Rules 3
Article 2. General Regulatory Provisions
27-921. Surface disturbances created by new exploration operation or
minin~ unit
27-922. Surface disturbances created by existin~ exploration operation
or minin~ unit: extension: continuin~ operations
27-923. Creating surface disturbances of five acres or less
27-924. Inactive mining units
27-925. Remedial response to emer~encies and ~overnmental orders
27-926. Initiation. extension and completion of reclamation
27-927. Substantial changes to approved reclamation plan
27-928. Transferring an approved reclamation plan.
27-929. Notice of plan or substantial change
27-930. Public disclosure of information
27-931. Variances
27-932. Coordination with other governmental agencies
27-933. Fee
27-934. Appealing denials
Article 3. Exploration Operations Reclamation Plan
27-951. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
ATTACHr1ENT A
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
27-952. Time for submission
27-953. Notice of complete. incomplete or denied plan
27-954. ,=Approval: criteria
27-955. Be~nnin~ new eXlJloration operations
27-956. Annual renewal
Article 4. Mining Unit Reclamation Plan
27-971. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
27-972. Notice of complete. incomplete or denied plan
27-973. Approval: criteria
27-974. Preservation and conservation of soil: exceptions
27-975. Features excluded from reclamation plan or allowed to
remain followin~ reclamation: public protection measures
Article 5. Financial Assurance
27-991. Financial assurance requirements: form
27-992. Minin~ unit or existin~ eXlJloration operation
27-993. New eXlJloration operation
27-994. Financial assurance for surface disturbances of five acres
or less
27-995. Duplication of financial assurance not required
27-996. Incremental financial assurance
27-997. Release of financial assurance
27-998. Rules: release. forfeiture or exercise of financial assurance
Article 6. Enforcement
27-1021. Inspections
27-1022. Compliance orders
27-1023. Enforcement action on reclamation plan approval
27-1024. Injunctive relief: civil penalties
27-1025. A~ency order: appeal
27-1026. Violation: classification
Sec. 2. Requirements for enactment
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
Rough Draft
Folder #0529
12/15/93 DMT/dt
REFERENCE TITLE: mined land reclamation act
State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
1994
S. B.
Introduced by ___
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 27, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 5; RELATING
TO MINES.
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 27, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
3 chapter 5, to read:
4 CHAPTER 5
5 MINED LAND RECLAMATION
6 ARTICLE 1. ADMINISTRATION
7 27-901. Definitions
8 IN THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
9 1. IIBOARD II MEANS THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
10 2. IIDEPARTMENT II MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF MI NES AND MI NERAL
11 RESOURCES.
12 3. IIDIRECTOR II MEANS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT.
13 4. IIEXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION II MEANS AN EXPLORATION OPERATION
14 THAT IS ONGOING AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
15 5. EXISTING MINING UNITJ' MEANS AMINING UNIT, OTHER THAN A NEW
16 MINING UNIT, THAT CONTINUED OPERATIONS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1986.
17 6. IIEXPLORATION OPERATIONS" MEANS ACTI VITI ES THAT CREATE
18 DISTURBANCES ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH OUTSIDE AMINING FACILITY, THAT
19 ARE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE, LOCATION, EXTENT, DEPTH OR GRADE
20 OF MINERALS AND THAT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTING ACCESS ROADS AND DRILL PADS.
21 7. II INACTI VE MI NI NG UNIT" MEANS AMI NI NG UNIT THAT HAS NOT BEEN
22 OPERATED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1986 AND FOR WHICH THERE IS A CURRENT
23 IDENTIFIABLE OWNER OR OPERATOR OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT.
1 8.:=)!.MAINTENANCE" MEANS AN ACTIVITY TO PRESERVE OR REPAIR THE
2 FUNCTION OF PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED LAND THAT DOES NOT EXPAND THE AREA OF THE
3 DISTURBANCE, INCLUDING GRADING ROADS, REPAIRING BERMS OR DAMS AND DREDGING
4 SEDIMENTATION BASINS.
5 9. "MINERAL" MEANS ANY METALLIFEROUS MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM THE
6 EARTH, INCLUDING GOLD, SILVER, COPPER, MOLYBDENUM, ZINC AND LEAD AND OTHER
7 MATERIALS THAT ARE USED AS FEEDSTOCKS IN PRODUCING METALLIFEROUS
8 MATERIALS.
9 10. "MINING FACILITY" MEANS PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED, OPERATED OR
10 MANAGED BY THE SAME PERSON TO DEVELOP, MINE, CONCENTRATE OR LEACH MINERALS
11 AND ASSOCIATED MINERAL RECOVERY ACTIVITIES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE SMELTING,
12 REFINING, FABRICATING OR OTHER METAL PROCESSING FACILITIES AND MATERIALS
13 ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE FACILITIES. PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS BUT
14 WITHIN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND OPERATED AS ASINGLE MINING COMPLEX
15 IS CONSIDERED TO BE ASINGLE MINING FACILITY.
16 11. "MINING UNIT" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL PORTION OF A MINING FACILITY
17 THAT ENCOMPASSES ONE OR MORE SURFACE DISTURBANCES.
18 12. "NEW EXPLORATION OPERATION" MEANS AN EXPLORATION OPERATION THAT
19 BEGINS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INITIAL RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
20 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
21 13. "NEW MINING UNIT" MEANS A MINING UNIT -AT WHICH SURFACE
22 DISTURBANCES BEGIN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INITIAL RULES ADOPTED
23 BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
24 14. "RECLAMATION" MEANS MEASURES THAT ARE TAKEN ON SURFACE
25 DISTURBANCES AT EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING UNITS TO ACHIEVE
26 STABILITY AND SAFETY CONSISTENT WITH POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES
27 SPECIFIED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
28 15. "SOIL" MEANS TOPSOIL, SUITABLE SUBSTRATA OR OTHER PLANT GROWTH
29 MEDIA THAT WILL SUSTAIN VEGETATION.
30 16. "STABI LITY" MEANS THE CONDITION OF LAND WITH RESPECT TO ITS
31 EROSION POTENTIAL AND ABILITY TO WITHSTAND SEISMIC ACTIVITY.
32 17. "SURFACE DISTURBANCE" MEANS CLEARING, COVERING OR MOVING LAND BY
33 MEANS OF MECHANIZED EQUIPMENT FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT AND
34 PRODUCTION PURPOSES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE SURVEYING, ASSESSMENT AND
35 LOCATION WORK, SEISMIC WORK, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER SUCH ACTIVITIES THAT
36 CREATE ADE MINIMIS DISTURBANCE.
37 27-902. Mined land reclamation section in department of
38 mines and mineral resources; integration and
39 coordination of programs and activities
40 A. THE BOARD SHALL ESTABLISH AMINED LAND RECLAMATION SECTION IN
41 THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND EMPLOY STAFF WHO HAVE
42 THE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPERIENCE IN MINING AND RECLAIMING MINED
43 LANDS.
44 B. THIS CHAPTER DOES NOT REPLACE OR DUPLICATE PROVISIONS OF TITLE
45 49 THAT REGULATE EXPLORATION AND MINING OPERATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC
46 HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
47 C. THE BOARD SHALL INTEGRATE ALL PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE
48 DEPARTMENT THAT APPLY TO EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING FACILITIES FOR
-2-
1 PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT AND AVOID REDUNDANT,
2 INCONSISfE~T OR CONTRADICTORY RECLAMATION, INSPECTION, ADMINISTRATION,
3 ENFORCEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
4 D. THE REQUIREMENTS OF A RECLAMATION PLAN UNDER THIS CHAPTER, A
5 CLOSURE PLAN FOR THE SAME MINING UNIT REQUIRED UNDER TITLE 49, CHAPTER 2,
6 ARTICLE 3 AND OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TITLE AND TITLE
7 49, INCLUDING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, SHALL NOT BE REDUNDANT,
8 INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY. THIS CHAPTER DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE
9 CLOSURE PLAN REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 49, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 3.
10 27-903. Agreements for coordination with other
11 governmental agencies and landowners
12 THE BOARD MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7,
13 ARTICLE 3 WITH THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND
14 MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND OTHER AGENCIES THAT MANAGE
15 PUBLIC LANDS AND TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO COORDINATE THE REVIEW
16 AND APPROVAL OF RECLAMATION PLANS, INCLUDING DESIGNATING A LEAD AGENCY FOR
17 RECLAMATION PLAN REVIEW AND ACTION. THE BOARD SHALL AVOID REDUNDANT,
18 INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY RECLAMATION, INSPECTION, ADMINISTRATION,
19 ENFORCEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
20 27-904. Rules
21 NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1995 THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES
22 CONSISTENT WITH THIS CHAPTER FOR THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES
23 AT EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING UNITS AND FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
24 THIS CHAPTER.
25 ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS
26 27-921. Surface disturbances created by new exploration
27 operation or mining unit
28 AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANEW EXPLORATION OPERATION OR NEW MINING
29 UNIT SHALL NOT CREATE ASURFACE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN FIVE CONTIGUOUS
30 ACRES UNTIL ARECLAMATION PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR THE
31 EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT ARE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OR ARE
32 OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER.
33 27-922. Surface disturbances created by existing
34 exploration operation or mining unit;
35 extension; continuing operations
36 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
37 EXISTING MINING UNIT WITH SURFACE DISTURBANCES OF MORE THAN FIVE
38 CONTIGUOUS ACRES SHALL SUBMIT ARECLAMATION PLAN WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
39 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INITIAL RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS
40 CHAPTER.
41 B. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY PETITION THE DIRECTOR FOR AN EXTENSION
42 OF TIME TO SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN. THE DIRECTOR SHALL GRANT THE
43 EXTENSION ON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, INCLUDING THE NEED TO COORDINATE THE
44 PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A RECLAMATION PLAN WITH AN AQUIFER
45 PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION UNDER TITLE 49, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 2 OR WITH
46 OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
47 MINING UNIT.
-3-
1 C. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
2 EXISTING~M1~NING UNIT MAY CONTINUE OPERATIONS, INCLUDING CREATING SURFACE
3 DISTURBANCES, UNTIL THE DIRECTOR TAKES FINAL ACTION ON THE RECLAMATION
4 PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM.
5 D. THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES CREATED IN WHOLE OR IN
6 PART BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER AND THE RULES ADOPTED
7 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER MAY PRESENT SPECIAL TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
8 CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE NOT ENCOUNTERED FOR NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCES. THE
9 DIRECTOR SHALL CONSIDER THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE EXISTING SURFACE
10 DISTURBANCES, RELEVANT SITE-SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TECHNICAL AND
11 ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY OF RECLAIMING SUCH SURFACE DISTURBANCES. THE
12 DIRECTOR SHALL NOT REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF EXISTING MINING
13 UNITS TO SATISFY THE RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER.
14 27-923. Creating surface disturbances of five acres or
15 less
16 A. AN OWN~OR OPERATOR OF AEXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT
17 MAY CREATE ASURFACE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES OR LESS AFTER
18 THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS
19 CHAPTER ONLY ON:
20 1. PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF
21 THE PLANNED SURFACE DISTURBANCES AND THE RECLAMATION MfASURES CONSISTENT
22 WITH THIS CHAPTER.
23 2. PAYMENT OF A FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD BY RULE.
24 3. PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE IN ASTANDARD AMOUNT PURSUANT TO
25 ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER.
26 B. THE DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE ARECLAMATION PLAN UNDER ARTICLE 3 OR 4
27 OF THIS CHAPTER IN THE CASE OF ASERIES OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES OF FIVE
28 CONTIGUOUS ACRES OR LESS BY THE SAME OWNER OR OPERATOR.
29 27-924. Inactive mining units
30 A. AT AN INACTIVE MINING UNIT, THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
31 RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER:
32 1. VOLUNTARY RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED BY FEDERAL
33 OR STATE LAW, REGULATION OR PERMIT.
34 2. ACTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH OTHER LOCAL, STATE OR
35 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, PERMITS, ORDERS OR DECREES.
36 3. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.
37 B. EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, MINING,
38 CONCENTRATING AND LEACHING ACTIVITIES AT AN INACTIVE MINING UNIT ARE
39 SUBJECT TO THE RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER ONLY WITH RESPECT
40 TO NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCES CREATED BY THOSE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES.
41 27-925. Remedial response to emergencies and governmental
42 orders
43 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NOTICE OR OBTAIN
44 APPROVAL OF ARECLAMATION PLAN OR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM UNDER THIS
45 CHAPTER BEFORE CREATING A SURFACE DISTURBANCE PURSUANT TO AREMEDIAL
46 ACTION IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY OR TO AGOVERNMENT ORDER TO PREVENT OR
47 MITIGATE AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE
48 ENVIRONMENT.
-4-
1 B.c="+HE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL UPDATE THE RECLAMATION PLAN AND
2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER COMPLETING THE
3 EMERGENCY OR REMEDIAL MEASURE.
4 27-926. Initiation, extension and completion of
5 reclamation
6 A. IF A SURFACE DISTURBANCE CANNOT BE PRACTICABLY RECLAIMED
7 CONCURRENTLY WITH AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AT A MINING UNIT,
8 RECLAMATION SHALL BE INITIATED EITHER:
9 1. WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER COMPLETING THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
10 MINING UNIT.
11 2. WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER CESSATION OF MINING ACTIVITY IF THE OWNER
12 OR OPERATOR DOES NOT INTEND TO RESUME THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
13 UNIT OPERATION.
14 3. AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW.
15 B. THE DIRECTOR SHALL EXTEND THE PERIOD IN WHICH TO INITIATE
16 RECLAMATION UNDER SUBSECTION A, WITH UP TO THREE SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR
17 EXTENSIONS, IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
18 UNIT DEMONSTRATES A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PROJECT OR OPERATION
19 WILL RESUME, BASED ON ACONSIDERATION OF FACTORS, INCLUDING:
20 1. THE PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL MINERALIZATION OF THE COMMODITY BEING
21 MINED OR OTHER COMMODITIES IN COMMERCE.
22 2. HISTORICAL FLUCTUATIONS IN THE VALUE OF THE COMMODITY BEING
23 MINED OR OTHER COMMODITIES PRESENT IF THEY CAN BE MINED USING THE SAME
24 DISTURBANCES.
25 3. THE DESIGN LIFE OF ANY BENEFICIATION PROCESS COMPONENTS EXISTING
26 AT AMINING UNIT.
27 C. ONCE INITIATED, THE FINAL RECLAMATION MEASURES SHALL BE
28 PERFORMED AS STATED IN THE APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN UNLESS THE
29 EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT IS REACTIVATED.
30 27-927. Substantial changes to approved reclamation plan
31 A. THE DIRECTOR MUST APPROVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO AN APPROVED
32 RECLAMATION PLAN AS PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION BEFORE THE CHANGE IS
33 IMPLEMENTED.
34 B. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
35 UNIT SHALL SUBMIT ANOTICE OF APROPOSED CHANGE TO THE DIRECTOR DESCRIBING
36 THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND WHETHER IT CONSTITUTES A
37 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN. IF THE DIRECTOR
38 FAILS TO RESPOND WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS, THE CHANGE IS CONSIDERED TO BE
39 CONSISTENT WITH THE OPERATION'S OR UNIT'S APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN.
40 C. IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE CHANGE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE
41 DIRECTOR SHALL:
42 1. NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE DECISION WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
43 AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE.
44 2. REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN
45 FOR APPROVAL. THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE AMENDED PLAN
46 WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE AMENDED PLAN.
-5-
1 C. THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL, AND
2 THE OWN~~ OR OPERATOR IS REQUIRED TO FILE ONLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE
3 RECLAMATION PLAN AND MODIFY THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AS NECESSARY:
4 1. NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCES THAT CAN BE RECLAIMED IN AMANNER THAT
5 IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE MANNER OR RECLAMATION INCLUDED IN THE
6 APPROVED PLAN.
7 2. CHANGES IN THE SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES FOR RECLAMATION, INCLUDING
8 THE EQUIPMENT USED AND THE MIXES OF SEEDS AND SOILS.
9 3. CHANGES IN LOCATION OR CONFIGURATION OR ACREAGE OF SURFACE
10 DISTURBANCES UNLESS THE CHANGES SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE RECLAMATION
11 MEASURES STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
12 D. BEFORE IMPLEMENTING A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN AN APPROVED
13 RECLAMATION PLAN, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT TO, AND RECEIVE
14 APPROVAL FROM, THE DIRECTOR AREVISED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM TO
15 ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
16 27-928. Transferring an approved reclamation plan
17 A. ARECLAMATION PLAN MAY BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE PERSON TO
18 ANOTHER, BY OPERATION OF LAW OR OTHERWISE, IF THE CURRENT OWNER OR
19 OPERATOR NOTIFIES THE DIRECTOR IN WRITING BEFORE THE TRANSFER. THE NOTICE
20 SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND STATUTORY AGENT OF
21 THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PLAN WILL BE TRANSFERRED, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
22 PROPOSED TRANSFER, A PROPOSED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM AND OTHER
23 INFORMATION THE DIRECTOR MAY DETERMINE TO BE NECESSARY BY RULE.
24 B. THE DIRECTOR MAY DENY A TRANSFER ON DETERMINING THAT THE
25 PROPOSED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 5 OF
26 THIS CHAPTER OR THAT THE TRANSFEREE IS NOT CAPABLE OF OPERATING IN
27 COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, THE RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE
28 OR THE CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN. THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE
29 NOTICE OF AND THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL WITHIN TEN WORKING DAYS AFTER
30 RECEIVING THE PROPOSED TRANSFER. ADENIAL OF THE PLAN TRANSFER IS SUBJECT
31 TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6.
32 C. ON RECEIVING THE APPROVED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FROM THE
33 TRANSFEREE THE DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
34 PROVIDED BY THE TRANSFEROR.
35 27-929. Notice of plan or substantial change
36 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF APROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN OR
37 A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO AN APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN ONCE EACH WEEK FOR
38 TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE COUNTY
39 OR COUNTIES IN WHICH THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT IS OR WILL
40 BE LOCATED. IF THERE IS NO SUCH NEWSPAPER, THE DIRECTOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE
41 IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION THAT IS PUBLISHED IN AN ADJOINING
42 COUNTY.
43 B. THE NOTICE SHALL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN
44 OR CHANGE AND STATE THAT ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
45 PLAN OR CHANGE MAY:
46 1. FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE PLAN OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
47 WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE LAST PUBLICATION.
48 2. REQUEST APUBLIC HEARING.
-6-
1 C. AN OBJECTION SHALL STATE THE NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF THE
2 OBJECTOR~-"~BE SIGNED BY THE OBJECTOR OR THE OBJECTOR'S AGENT OR ATTORNEY
3 AND CLEARLY STATE THE REASONS WHY THE PLAN OR CHANGE SHOULD BE DENIED.
4 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN OR CHANGE
5 MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THIS CHAPTER.
6 D. IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT PUBLIC INTEREST, THE DIRECTOR MAY HOLD A
7 PUBLIC HEARING IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
8 UNIT IS OR WILL BE LOCATED.
9 27-930. Public disclosure of information
10 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ANY RECORDS,
11 REPORTS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED OR PREPARED BY THE DIRECTOR OR A
12 DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, UNLESS ANOTICE ACCOMPANYING THE INFORMATION OR ANY
13 PART OF THE INFORMATION STATES THAT THE INFORMATION IS ATRADE SECRET AS
14 DEFINED IN SECTION 49-201.
15 B. IF THE DIRECTOR, ON HIS OWN OR FOLLOWING A REQUEST FOR
16 DISCLOSURE, DISAGREES WITH THE TRADE SECRET NOTICE, THE DIRECTOR MAY TAKE
17 APPROPRIATE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES IN SECTION 49-432,
18 SUBSECTIONS D, E AND F.
19 27-931. Variances
20 A. THE DIRECTOR MAY GRANT TO AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION
21 OPERATION OR MINING UNIT ACONDITIONAL ORDER ALLOWING JHE PERSON TO VARY
22 FROM ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, ANY RULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS
23 CHAPTER OR ANY REQUIREMENT OR CONDITION OF ARECLAMATION PLAN ISSUED
24 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER IF THE DIRECTOR FINDS THAT ISSUING THE
25 CONDITIONAL ORDER WILL NOT ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
26 B. THE DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE INNOVATIVE RECLAMATION OR OTHER
27 MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT VARY FROM THE RECLAMATION
28 STANDARDS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS UNDER
29 ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER OR THE RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER
30 AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AND ON ASHOWING THEAT THE INNOVATIVE OR OTHER
31 MEASURES CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE THE POST-MINING LAND USE
32 OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
33 27-932. Coordination with other governmental agencies
34 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
35 RECLAMATION PLANS WITH THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT, THE UNITED STATES BUREAU
36 OF LAND MANAGEMENT, THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND OTHER AGENCIES
37 THAT MANAGE PUBLIC LANDS ON WHICH EXPLORATION OPERATIONS OR MINING
38 FACILITIES ARE LOCATED, WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, THROUGH
39 MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS THAT DESIGNATE A LEAD
40 AGENCY FOR RECLAMATION PLAN REVIEW AND ACTION. THIS COORDINATION IS
41 INTENDED TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS TO INSPECT EXPLORATION OPERATIONS
42 AND MINING FACILITIES AND REVIEW AND ENFORCE RECLAMATION PLANS. THE
43 MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE THAT NO FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MAY
44 BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE THAT WILL DUPLICATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
45 REQUIRED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OR AGREEMENT.
46 B. IF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AMINING UNIT IS LOCATED ON LAND
47 ADMINISTERED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY, AN APPROVED FEDERAL RECLAMATION PLAN AND
48 A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR THE FEDERAL LAND THAT ARE CONSISTENT
-7-
-
ARTICLE 3. EXPLORATION OPERATIONS RECLAMATION PLAN
27-951. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
A. APERSON WHO CONDUCTS EXPLORATION OPERATIONS THAT WILL CREATE
MORE THAN FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE SHALL SUBMIT A
RECLAMATION PLAN TO THE DIRECTOR. THE RECLAMATION PLAN SHALL:
1. IDENTIFY THE COUNTY OR COUNTIES IN WHICH EXPLORATION OPERATION
WILL BE CONDUCTED.
2. STATE THE RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO RECLAIM
ACCESS ROADS, DRILL PADS, DRILL HOLES, TRENCHES AND OTHER EXPLORATION
WORKINGS WHERE THE OPERATOR CONDUCTS EXPLORATION OPERATIONS IN THIS STATE.
B. AN OPERATOR MAY SUBMIT ASINGLE RECLAMATION PLAN COVERING ALL
NEW AND EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS IN THE STATE.
27-952. Time for submission
A. AN OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR A NEW
EXPLORATION OPERATION AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS BEFORE BEGINNING SURFACE
DISTURBANCES OF OVER FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES.
B. AN OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR AN EXISTING
EXPLORATION OPERATION WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER. EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS
MAY CONTINUE PENDING THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED PLAN AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM.
27-953. Notice of complete, incomplete or denied plan
A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OPERATOR THAT ARECLAMATION PLAN
IS COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE PLAN.
B. IF THE DIRECTOR NOTIFIES THE OPERATOR THAT APLAN IS INCOMPLETE
OR DENIED, THE DIRECTOR SHALL INCLUDE AWRITTEN EXPLANATION STATING THE
WITH TH~~~REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER SUPERSEDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A
RECLAMATioN PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
THIS CHAPTER. IF THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT IS CONDUCTED ON
A SITE THAT INCLUDES BOTH FEDERAL AND PRIVATE LAND, COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FEDERAL PLAN IS SUFFICIENT IF THAT PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY PROVIDES FOR THE
RECLAMATION OF THE SITE AND A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM REQUIRED BY
THIS CHAPTER.
27-933. Fee
A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL ASSESS AND COLLECT FROM THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AMINING UNIT AREASONABLE FEE BASED ON THE
REASONABLE DIRECT COSTS TO PROCESS, REVIEW, APPROVE OR DENY THE PLAN AND
ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PLAN. THE FEE SHALL BE REVISED ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS. THE BOARD SHALL ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR THOSE COSTS BY RULE.
B. THE INITIAL APPLICATION FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE DOLLAR PER ACRE
OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE COVERED BY THE RECLAMATION PLAN, WITH THE BALANCE
OF THE FEE TO BE PAID ON PLAN APPROVAL. THE TOTAL FEE COLLECTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS PER PLAN.
27-934. Appealing denials
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT MAY
APPEAL THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF APLAN AS PROVIDED BY TITLE 13, CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLE 6.
123456
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
-8-
1 REASONS FOR DENIAL INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTING UNACCEPTABLE
2 PARTS OF"-fHE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER.
3 27-954. Approval; criteria
4 THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR EXPLORATION
5 OPERATIONS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ACOMPLETE PLAN IF THE PLAN
6 PROVIDES FOR THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES AT THE EXPLORATION
7 OPERATIONS ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS, AS APPLICABLE:
8 1. EXPLORATION ACCESS ROADS THAT THE OPERATOR CONSTRUCTS WHICH WILL
9 NOT BE PART OF APOST-EXPLORATION USE SHALL BE RECLAIMED IN A TIMELY
10 MANNER AFTER THE EXPLORATION IS COMPLETED. IF AGOVERNMENTAL UNIT OR
11 AGENCY WILL ACCEPT DEDICATION OR CONVEYANCE OF AN ACCESS ROAD, RECLAMATION
12 IS NOT REQUIRED. RECLAMATION SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING CULVERTS, RESTORING
13 DRAINAGE TO ITS GENERAL PRE-DISTURBANCE CONFIGURATION, RIPPING THE ROAD
14 SURFACE TO REDUCE COMPACTION AND AID REVEGETATION AND CONTROLLING ACCESS
15 OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES TO THE RECLAIMED AREA.
16 2. HOLES THAT ARE DRILLED FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION PURPOSES, UNLESS
17 COMPLETED FOR WATER MONITORING, WITHDRAWAL OR OTHER USE, SHALL BE PLUGGED,
18 SEALED OR CAPPED PROMPTLY AFTER THEIR USE IS COMPLETED AS PRESCRIBED BY
19 THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SAFETY OF
20 PERSONS, ANIMALS AND MACHINERY IN THE AREA.
21 3. DRILL PADS SHALL BE RESHAPED PROMPTLY AFT£R COMPLETION OF
22 DRILLING TO PREVENT EROSION AND TO ESTABLISH CONTOURS THAT ARE GENERALLY
23 COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREAS OR RIPPED TO REDUCE COMPACTION AND AID
24 REVEGETATION AND, IF APPROPRIATE, SEEDED TO MINIMIZE EROSION.
25 4. MUD PITS THAT ARE USED FOR DRILLING FLUIDS AND PRODUCED WATERS
26 SHALL BE RECLAIMED AFTER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ARE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF,
27 IF NECESSARY, AND AFTER THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY DRY BY RESHAPING TO CONTOURS
28 THAT ARE GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREAS. IF IT IS
29 APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA, SUITABLE GROWTH MEDIA SHALL BE SPREAD AND SEEDED
30 OVER THE PIT AREA.
31 5. EXPLORATION TRENCHES AND PITS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND RECLAIMED
32 AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN. IF THE
33 TRENCH OR PIT WILL REMAIN OPEN, MEASURES SHALL BE TAKEN TO STABILIZE THE
34 SIDES TO CONTROL EROSION AND TO RESTRICT ACCESS. TRENCH AND PIT
35 RECLAMATION SHALL INCLUDE BACKFILLING, RESHAPING TO CONTOURS GENERALLY
36 COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREAS AND, IF APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA,
37 SEEDING TO REESTABLISH VEGETATION.
38 6. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED BY. BLADING WITH MECHANIZED
39 EQUIPMENT DURING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESHAPED AFTER
40 EXPLORATION IS COMPLETED, UNLESS USED FOR APOST-EXPLORATION USE, TO BE
41 GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREA. COMPACTED AREAS SHALL BE
42 RIPPED TO AID REVEGETATION.
43 27-955. Beginning new exploration operations
44 NEW EXPLORATION OPERATIONS MAY BEGIN WHEN BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING
45 OCCUR:
46 1. THE DIRECTOR APPROVES THE RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE EXPLORATION
47 OPERATIONS OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DIRECTOR RECEIVES A COMPLETE
48 RECLAMATION PLAN IF THE DIRECTOR FAILS TO TAKE ACTION.
-9-
1 2. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR AS
2 REQUIREO=gy ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER.
3 27-956. Annual renewal
4 ARECLAMATION PLAN FOR EXPLORATION OPERATIONS IS RENEWABLE ANNUALLY
5 ON:
6 1. PAYMENT OF THE FEE ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR.
7 2. MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN TO ADDRESS TYPES OF SURFACE
8 DISTURBANCES THAT WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS BUT HAVE
9 NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
10 3. SUBMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE, IF NECESSARY.
11 ARTICLE 4. MINING UNIT RECLAMATION PLAN
12 27-971. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
13 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY SUBMIT ASINGLE RECLAMATION PLAN THAT
14 COVERS MULTIPLE MINING UNITS AS AMINING FACILITY.
15 B. THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN SHALL INCLUDE:
16 1. THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR AND AN
17 INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL BE THE REGULATORY CONTACT.
18 2. A STATEMENT THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY
19 FOR THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
20 MINING UNIT CONSISTENT WITH THIS CHAPTER AND THE RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
21 THIS CHAPTER.
22 3. THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE MINING
23 UNIT.
24 4. THE PROPOSED POST-MINING USE OF THE LAND.
25 5. A DESCRIPTION OF THE MINING UNIT AND THE PROPOSED SURFACE
26 DISTURBANCES THAT WILL BE CREATED.
27 6. THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FINAL TOPOGRAPHY, INCLUDING THE FINAL
28 SLOPES OF LEACH PILES, OVERBURDEN OR LOW GRADE ROCK STOCKPILES AND TAILING
29 PILES.
30 7. A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF ROADS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE
31 MINING UNIT.
32 8. THE ACREAGE AFFECTED BY EACH TYPE OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE AND A
33 MAP OF THE MINING UNIT AREA SHOWING EACH SURFACE DISTURBANCE.
34 9. THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
35 THE POST-MINING LAND USE INCLUDING INFORMATION CONCERNING:
36 (a) THE MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO RESTRICT PUBLIC ACCESS TO
37 PITS, ADITS, SHAFTS AND OTHER SURFACE FEATURES THAT MAY BE A HAZARD TO
38 PUBLIC SAFETY.
39 (b) THE MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ADDRESS EROSION CONTROL AND
40 STABILITY.
41 (c) THE REVEGETATION, CONSERVATION OR TESTING MEASURES THAT WILL BE
42 TAKEN.
43 (d) CARE AND MONITORING OF THE REVEGETATED AREAS OF THE RECLAMATION
44 SITE AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER.
45 (e) A PROPOSED TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR BEGINNING SURFACE
46 DISTURBANCES AND THE BEGINNING AND COMPLETING THE RECLAMATION MEASURES.
-10-
1 (fl~~THE ESTIMATED COSTS TO PERFORM EACH OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION
2 MEASURES-~OR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
3 UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER.
4 27-972. Notice of complete, incomplete or denied plan
5 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT THE PLAN IS
6 COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE PLAN.
7 B. THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE APLAN FOR NEW MINING
8 UNITS WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ACOMPLETE PLAN.
9 C. IF THE DIRECTOR NOTIFIES THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT A PLAN IS
10 INCOMPLETE OR DENIED, THE DIRECTOR SHALL INCLUDE AWRITTEN EXPLANATION
11 STATING THE REASONS FOR DENIAL INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTING
12 UNACCEPTABLE PARTS OF THE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
13 CHAPTER.
14 27-973. Approval; criteria
15 THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE ARECLAMATION PLAN FOR MINING UNITS IF
16 THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR RECLAMATION MEASURES FOR SURFACE DISTURBANCES THAT
17 ARE:
18 1. NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE ASAFE AND STABLE CONDITION SUITABLE FOR
19 THE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
20 2. COMPATIBLE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES REGARDING EROSION
21 CONTROL AND SEISMIC ACTIVITY FOR THE APPLICABLE SEISMIC20NE.
22 B. IN EVALUATING THE RECLAMATION PLAN, THE DIRECTOR SHALL CONSIDER
23 THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION
24 MEASURES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SITE-SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE
25 MINING UNIT AND THE PROPOSED POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES AS STATED IN
26 THE RECLAMATION PLAN, INCLUDING:
27 1. GRAZING AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND USE OBJECTIVES.
28 2. DEVELOPED WATER RESOURCES AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
29 3. CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS.
30 4. FISH OR WILDLIFE HABITAT.
31 5. FORESTRY.
32 6. HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
33 7. INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL, INCLUDING TOURISM.
34 8. MINING OR REMINING.
35 9. RECREATION.
36 10. RESIDENTIAL.
37 11. SCIENTIFIC OR EDUCATIONAL.
38 12. OTHER APPROPRIATE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES.
39 C. THE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVE STATED IN THE RECLAMATION
40 PLAN NEED NOT BE THE SAME USE OF THE LAND THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE MINING
41 FACILITY WAS LOCATED ON THE SITE.
42 27-974. Preservation and conservation of soil; exceptions
43 BEFORE CREATING ASURFACE DISTURBANCE THAT IS STATED TO BE RECLAIMED
44 BY REVEGETATION PURSUANT TO A NEW MINING UNIT RECLAMATION PLAN, THE OWNER
45 OR OPERATOR SHALL CONSERVE THE SOIL AS REASONABLY AVAILABLE FROM THE AREA
46 OF DISTURBANCE TO SUPPORT THE STATED REVEGETATION ON THAT SPECIFIC
47 DISTURBANCE AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES
-11-
1 STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN UNLESS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR DEMONSTRATES
2 ONE OR MORt OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
3 1. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SOIL TO MAKE RECOVERY PRACTICABLE.
4 2. RECOVERY OF THE SOIL IS NOT PRACTICABLE DUE TO LIMITATIONS OF
5 TOPOGRAPHY, THICKNESS OF SOIL OR OTHER PHYSICAL, CLIMACTIC OR BIOLOGICAL
6 CONSTRAINTS.
7 3. DIRECT REVEGETATION OF THE DISTURBANCE, WITH OR WITHOUT SOIL
8 AMENDMENTS, IS NOT REASONABLE EXPECTED TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
9 27-975. Features excluded from reclamation plan or
10 allowed to remain following reclamation; public
11 protection measures
12 A. A RECLAMATION PLAN MAY EXCLUDE ANY PROVISION FOR RECLAIMING OPEN
13 PITS, ROCK FACES OR SUBSIDENCE AREAS THROUGH BACKFILLING OR RETURNING
14 MATERIALS TO THE OPEN PIT, ROCK FACE OR SUBSIDENCE AREA FROM WHICH IT WAS
15 EXTRACTED IF IT IS IMPRACTICABLE AND IF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE OPEN PIT,
16 ROCK FACE OR SUBSIDENCE AREA, INCLUDING ANY SURROUNDING UNSTABLE AREAS OR
17 WALLS, IS RESTRICTED BY FENCING OR OTHER INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
18 B. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER
19 THE RECLAMATION OF OPEN PITS, ROCK FACES OR SUBSIDENCE AREAS IS
20 IMPRACTICABLE:
21 1. COST TO PERFORM THE RECLAMATION.
22 2. TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE.
23 3. GEOLOGY AND STABILITY OF THE SITE.
24 4. THE TIME REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE RECLAMATION.
25 5. THE CONSUMPTION OF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE
26 RECLAMATION.
27 6. FUTURE ACCESS TO MINERAL RESOURCES.
28 B. BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES MAY REMAIN AFTER RECLAMATION IF
29 ADEQUATE MEASURES ARE TAKEN TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY.
30 ARTICLE 5. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
31 27-991. Financial assurance requirements; form
32 A. OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING UNITS
33 WHO CREATE SURFACE DISTURBANCES SHALL PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TO THE
34 DIRECTOR AS PROVIDED BY THIS ARTICLE.
35 B. ALLOWABLE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISMS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
36 ARTICLE INCLUDE ANY OR ACOMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. SURETY BOND.
38 2. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT.
39 3. TRUST FUND WITH PAY-IN PERIOD.
40 4. LETTER OF CREDIT.
41 5. INSURANCE POLICY.
42 6. CERTIFICATE OF SELF INSURANCE.
43 7. CASH DEPOSIT WITH THE STATE TREASURER.
44 8. EVIDENCE OF ABILITY TO MEET A CORPORATE FINANCIAL TEST OR
45 CORPORATE GUARANTEES AS PROVIDED BY 40 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTION
46 264.143(f).
47 9. ANNUITIES.
-12-
1 10. ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISMS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO
2 THE DIRErfoR.
3 27-992. Mining unit or existing exploration operation
4 A. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR A
5 NEW OR EXISTING MINING UNIT SHALL TRANSMIT AFINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
6 TO THE DIRECTOR WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER ARECLAMATION PLAN IS APPROVED.
7 THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
8 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER IT IS RECEIVED.
9 B. IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TO BE PROVIDED
10 FOR AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AMINING UNIT, THE DIRECTOR SHALL
11 CONSIDER THE COSTS OF APPROVED RECLAMATION MEASURES STATED IN THE
12 RECLAMATION PLAN. IN COMPUTING RECLAMATION COSTS, THE DIRECTOR SHALL
13 ASSUME THAT THIRD PARTIES WILL PERFORM THE RECLAMATION MEASURES. THE
14 DIRECTOR SHALL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TO
15 THE COSTS OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR PERFORMING THE RECLAMATION MEASURES IF
16 THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL ABILITY TO
17 PERFORM THE NECESSARY RECLAMATION. FINANCIAL ABILITY SHALL BE ESTABLISHED
18 BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FINANCIAL MECHANISMS DESCRIBED IN 40 CODE OF FEDERAL
19 REGULATIONS SECTION 264.143(f).
20 C. EACH ~INANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR AN EXISTING EXPLORATION
21 OR MINING UNIT APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIQE THE AMOUNT IN
22 CURRENT DOLLARS EQUAL TO THE COST TO:
23 1. PERFORM THE APPROVED RECLAMATION MEASURES STATED IN THE
24 RECLAMATION PLAN ON THE AREA OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE.
25 2. PROVIDE, IF NECESSARY, CONTINUED CARE AND MONITORING OF THE
26 AREAS STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN FOR REVEGETATION FOR NO MORE THAN
27 THREE GROWING SEASONS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION OR OTHER
28 MAN-INDUCED INPUTS AFTER PERFORMING THE RECLAMATION MEASURES UNLESS THE
29 SUPPLEMENTAL INPUTS ARE PART OF THE POST-MINING LAND USE. NOTWITHSTANDING
30 THIS PARAGRAPH, REVEGETATION EFFORTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE
31 POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVE ARE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IF THE
32 OWNER OR OPERATOR HAS TAKEN REASONABLE MEASURES TO ACHIEVE VEGETATIVE
33 SUCCESS. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY AS IT RELATES TO
34 SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED POST-MINING LAND USE SHALL BE
35 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.
36 D. THE DIRECTOR SHALL ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
37 EVERY FIVE YEARS OR MORE OFTEN AS NECESSARY TO ADJUST FOR NEW AREAS OF
38 PLANNED SURFACE DISTURBANCES, INFLATION OR TO REFLECT CHANGED COSTS
39 RESULTING FROM SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
40 27-993. New exploration operation
41 A. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A NEW EXPLORATION OPERATION SHALL
42 FURNISH A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM TO THE DIRECTOR IN AN AMOUNT
43 EQUIVALENT TO TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE OF NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCE,
44 UNLESS THE DIRECTOR APPROVES ACOST ESTIMATE FOR AN AMOUNT LESS THAN TWO
45 THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE.
46 B. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY PROVIDE ASINGLE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
47 MECHANISM FOR ALL OF ITS EXPLORATION OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN THIS STATE.
-13-
1 27~934. Financial assurance for surface disturbances of
2 ~~~ five acres or less
3 A PERSON WHO CREATES ASURFACE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES
4 OR LESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-923 SHALL PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE UNDER
5 THIS ARTICLE IN ASTANDARD AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE BOARD BY RULE. THE
6 DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THIS SECTION
7 WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION BY THE PERSON THAT THE RECLAMATION
8 MEASURES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED.
9 27-995. Duplication of financial assurance not required
10 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE THAT
11 DUPLICATES FINANCIAL ASSURANCE THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER OTHER STATE OR
12 FEDERAL LAWS.
13 27-996. Incremental financial assurance
14 AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE UNDER THIS
15 ARTICLE ON AN INCREMENTAL BASIS FOR PLANNED SURFACE DISTURBANCES DESCRIBED
16 IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
17 27-997. Release of financial assurance
18 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY APPLY TO THE DIRECTOR TO RELEASE ALL OR
19 PART OF THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THIS ARTICLE. THE
20 APPLICATION SHALL:
21 1. DESCRIBE THE RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT HAVE B~EN PERFORMED.
22 2. DESCRIBE ANY SURFACE DISTURBANCES INCLUDED IN THE RECLAMATION
23 PLAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISTURBED.
24 3. CONTAIN AN ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS OF RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT
25 HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED.
26 B. WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ACOMPLETE APPLICATION, THE
27 DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE ALL OR PART OF THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE EXCEPT FOR
28 ANY AMOUNT THAT IS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE RECLAMATION MEASURES
29 IDENTIFIED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN. AFTER THE RECLAMATION MEASURES HAVE
30 BEEN PERFORMED, THE REMAINING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE SHALL BE RELEASED EXCEPT
31 FOR TEN PER CENT TO BE RETAINED FOR THE COSTS OF CARE, MONITORING AND ONE
32 RESEEDING, IF NECESSARY, FOR AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN REVEGETATED. THE
33 DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE THE RETAINED MONIES AFTER APERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN
34 THREE GROWING SEASONS AFTER THE SUPPLEMENTAL MANAGEMENT OR OTHER
35 MAN-INDUCED INPUTS HAVE BEEN FINALLY REMOVED OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
36 SECTION 27-992, SUBSECTION B.
37 27-998. Rules; release, forfeiture or exercise of
38 financial assurance .
39 A. THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES FOR REVIEWING AND ACTING ON:
40 1. APPLICATIONS TO RELEASE ALL OR PART OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE UNDER
41 THIS ARTICLE.
42 2. FORFEITURE OR EXERCISE OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ON FAILURE TO
43 IMPLEMENT A RECLAMATION PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE.
44 B. THE RULES SHALL PROVIDE FOR WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL PRINCIPALS AND
45 SURETIES ON THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING.
46 ARTICLE 6. ENFORCEMENT
47 27-1021. Inspections
-14-
1 TH~"~DIRECTOR MAY ENTER AND INSPECT, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS,
2 ANY EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING FACILITY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS
3 CHAPTER TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER. THE DIRECTOR SHALL
4 NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WITHIN AREASONABLE TIME BEFORE ENTERING THE
5 PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION.
6 27-1022. Compliance orders
7 A. IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT A PERSON IS VIOLATING THIS
8 CHAPTER, ARULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR ANY CONDITION OF A
9 RECLAMATION PLAN APPROVED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR IS CAUSING AN
10 IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR TO THE
11 ENVIRONMENT, THE DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE EITHER
12 IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN A STATED PERIOD OF TIME.
13 B. ACOMPLIANCE ORDER SHALL STATE WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICITY THE
14 NATURE OF THE VIOLATION, ATIME FOR COMPLIANCE, IF APPLICABLE, AND THE
15 RIGHT TO AHEARING.
16 C. THE DIRECTOR SHALL TRANSMIT THE COMPLIANCE ORDER TO THE ALLEGED
17 VIOLATOR EITHER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, OR BY HAND
18 DELIVERY.
19 D. AT THE DIRECTOR'S REQUEST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY FILE AN
20 ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO ENFORCE ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER
21 THE ORDER BECOMES FINAL. THE ACTION SHALL BE FILED I~SUPERIOR COURT IN
22 THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OCCURRED OR IN WHICH THE
23 DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE.
24 27-1023. Enforcement action on reclamation plan approval
25 A. THE DIRECTOR MAY SUSPEND, AMEND, WITHDRAW, IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON
26 OR REVOKE ARECLAMATION PLAN APPROVAL IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE
27 FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY RULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
28 B. ANY ACTION TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
29 REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6.
30 27-1024. Injunctive relief; civil penalties
31 A. IF THE DIRECTOR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A PERSON IS VIOLATING
32 THIS CHAPTER, ARULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR THAT A PERSON IS
33 CAUSING AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR TO THE
34 ENVIRONMENT, THE DIRECTOR, THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MAY REQUEST A
35 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, A PERMANENT
36 INJUNCTION OR ANY OTHER RELIEF NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR
37 THE ENVIRONMENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE PERSON HAS REQUESTED A
38 HEARING.
39 B. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS CHAPTER OR A RULE, ORDER OR
40 RECLAMATION PLAN APPROVAL ADOPTED OR ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER IS
41 SUBJECT TO ACIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH
42 DAY OF VIOLATION, NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH
43 VIOLATION. AT THE DIRECTOR'S REQUEST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL FILE AN
44 ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO RECOVER CIVIL PENALTIES AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS
45 SECTION.
46 C. AN ACTION FILED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE BROUGHT IN SUPERIOR
47 COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OCCURRED OR IN WHICH
48 THE DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE.
-15-
1 27-1025. Agency order; appeal
2 A.'="AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE IS
3 FINAL UNLESS THE DEFENDANT APPEALS THE ORDER PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER
4 6 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER.
5 B. AFINAL AGENCY ORDER IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
6 TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6.
7 27-1026. Violation; classification
8 A. BEGINNING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
9 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER, AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION
10 OR MINING UNIT SHALL NOT:
11 1. CAUSE A SURFACE DISTURBANCE AT AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR NEW
12 MINING UNIT WITHOUT A RECLAMATION PLAN OR NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THIS
13 CHAPTER.
14 2. FAIL OR REFUSE TO CONDUCT RECLAMATION ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF
15 AN APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN.
16 B. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF ACLASS 2
17 MISDEMEANOR.
18 Sec. 2. ReqUirements for enactment
19 Pursuant to article IX, section 22, Constitution of Arizona, this
20 act is effective only on the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of
21 the members of each house of the legislature and is effe~tive immediately
22 on the signature of the governor or, if the governor vetoes this act, on
23 the SUbsequent affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the members
24 of each house of the Legislature.
-16-
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
M E M 0
December 16, 1993
To: MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
ON MINED LAND RECLAMATION
From: SUSAN MCJUNKIN, Legislative Research Analyst
Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee
Re: Suggested Changes to Mined Land Reclamation Bill Draft - #0529
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
1) Include "Bad Actor" prOV1Slons which will prohibit approval of a
mined land reclamation plan submitted by a mine owner or operator who has
a poor record of criminal and/or civil violations relating to that person's
mining operations (* This is similar to the certificate of disclosure of
violations required by ADEQ.)
2) Provide for separate legislation for the plan fee provisions for the
Mined Land Reclamation program to avoid Proposition 108 requirements for
the program itself (Proposition 108 requires at least a 2/3 vote of each
house for passage and the makes the bill effective upon the signature of
the Governor.) -
3) Eliminate state lands from the provisions of the reclamation program
since the State Land Department already administers and enforces
reclamation of mining operations on state lands. The Land Department would
continue to coordinate with state and federal agencies on reclamation plan
approval for mining operations that are on both public and private land.
TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES
4) Move back the date by which the administering agency must adopt rules
for the Mined Land Reclamation Program from December 31, 1995 to
July 1, 1996.
5) Conform the time frames provided for reclamation plan filing, approval
and changes to allow the administering agency a longer period of time to
act on an application or submittal.
sm ATTACHMENT B
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, December 16, 1993
Senate Hearing Room 2 - 2:00 p.m.
Cochairman Buster called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. after the conclusion
of the subcommittee meeting, and roll call was taken. See attached sheet for
other attendees.
Members Present
Representative Conner
Representative Kaites
Representative Brown
Representative Clark
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
Senator Hardt
Representative Keegan, Cochairman
Senator Buster, Cochairman
Members Excused
Senator Phill ips
Susan McJunkin
Dan Shein
Susan McJunkin, Senate Research Analyst, explainEd that the subcommittee
recommended a proposal that was submitted at its last meeting and redrafted by
Legislative Council (filed with original minutes). She provided an overview of
the proposal and substantive changes recommended by the subcommittee (filed with
original minutes).
Jim Bush, representing Arizona Mining Association, offered to answer any
questions the Committee might have. Representative Conner and Senator Chesley
commented on the advantages of deleting the provision mandating the Department
of Mines and Mineral Resources (DMMR) to administer and enforce a State Mined
Land Reclamation Program, with consideration of the appropriate department to
fulfill this responsibility to be given during the regular legislative process.
Mr. Bush contended that the program could appropriately be administered and
enforced through DMMR but added that it would not be objectionable to the Arizona
Mining Association that the determination be made at a later time.
After discussion raised by Senator Hardt pertaining to the references in the
proposed legislation to DMMR, Senator Buster indicated that the bill could
reflect a blank line rather than refer to a particular agency.
Representative Conner moved that the Committee recommend to the
Legislature the proposed Mined Land Reclamation Program with the suggested
changes, i ncl udi ng the future determi nat i on of the admi ni strati ve and
enforcement agency for the program.
Bob Beatson, Di rector, Ari zona League of Conservation Voters, out1i ned the
provisions included in the proposal submitted by the League and the Sierra Club
(filed with original minutes). He explained that the proposed legislation is an
ATT.L\CHMENT C
December 16, 1993
Page 2
MINUTES OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY
COMMITTEE ON MINEO LAND RECLAMATION
environmentar"bill that d~als with reclamation and is based on legislation
recently enacted in New Mexico, a state with mining conditions that closely
approximate those in Arizona.
Raena Honan, representing Sierra Club, offered a side-by-side comparison of the
proposal discussed by Mr. Beatson and the proposal endorsed by the mining
industry and recommended by the subcommittee (filed with original minutes).
Ms. Honan suggested that the most appropriate place for the reclamation function
is within the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), particularly
since that agency routinely handles the permitting process for the mines. She
emphasized the need to consolidate and coordinate the functions of ADEQ rather
than create a new level of government. However, Ms. Honan contended that there
is no compelling reason to act immediately and recommended that the discussions
continue.
Larry Bauer, Deputy State Director for Mineral Resources, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, commented that the Federal mining law is currently under reform,
noting that bills recently passed by both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives include provisions to establish abandoned mine reclamation funds.
He explained that a state will not receive any of those Federal funds without
having its own reclamation program in place. Mr. Bauer provided information
pertaining to the significant drop in the number of active claims in the State
as a result of the implementation of Federal mining claim fees (filed with
original minutes). He suggested the Committee consider the ramifications of
funding the proposed reclamation program based on the number of mining claims.
Douglas Martin, State Mine Inspector, advocated that existing Federal and State
agencies coordinate their present mining reclamation activities as opposed to
creating an entirely new agency (handout filed with original minutes).
David Kimball, Chairman of Arizona Chamber of Commerce Environment Committee,
stated that the mining industry in New Mexico did not support the bill enacted
in that State. He also maintained that the bill presented by the Arizona League
of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club is not consistent with the New Mexico
program, particularly with the addition of the unsuitability provision. He
observed that New Mexico's environmental programs are quite different from those
in Arizona. Mr. Kimball noted that Arizona has ·one of the most protective
groundwater programs in the Nation and added that another major environmental
overlay program would result in significant duplication.
The motion CARRIED by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m.
submitted, c.~
Jan~e C. Stell, Committee Secretary
(Attachments and tapes are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)
JAi! i L. { /(.J 19 S
~: 00 /1'....
7:~ ~ oo--A H .
, \
s.oJf
'-\ '-\
~6;i~ fJ1dfLTlti
Ctf@?/( Wtf-lA

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

1993 FINAL REPORT
of the
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Presented to:
Speaker of the House Mark Killian
President of the Senate fohn Greene
December 27, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Background
II. Letter Establishing committee
III. committee Members
IV. Meeting Dates
V. Final Report of committee Recommendations
VI. Draft Legislation
VII. Memo Dated 12/16/93
- Approved Changes to Draft Legislation
VIII. Minutes of Final Meeting
- December 16, 1993
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMlTIEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Background
The Joint Legislative study Committee on Mined Land Reclamation was
established as an ad hoc committee by Speaker of the House, Mark
Killian and President of the Senate, John Greene in August, 1993 to
examine and make recommendations on the reclamation of mined land
in Arizona and the issue of abandoned mines. The committee was
directed to report its findings and recommendations to the Speaker
and President by December 15, 1993.
The committee first met on October 7, 1993 and was given an
overview of the state mining industry from the Arizona Department
of Mines and Mineral Resources (ADMMR) and the Arizona Mining
Association (AMA). The committee also heard from the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), the State Land
Department and the State Mine Inspector regarding existing mining
regulations. At the conclusion of the October 7 meeting, co­chairman,
Senator Jim Buster appointed a subcommittee consisting of
Senator Buster as chair, Senator Phillips, Senator Hardt,
Representative Conner , Representative Brown and Representative
Kaites. The subcommittee was charged with reporting its
recommendations back to the full committee by early December.
The first meeting of the subcommittee was held on November 15, 1993
and at that time, the committee was presented with a state mined
land reclamation proposal from the Arizona Mining Association
(AMA), which was discussed by the committee. The proposal would
have required ADEQ to administer the program.
The second meeting of the subcommittee was held on December 16,
1993, at which time the subcommittee reviewed and discussed
legislation drafted by Legislative Council based on the proposal
submitted by the AMA at the previous meeting. The one primary
difference was that the mined land reclamation program was to be
administered by the Arizona Department -of Mines and Mineral
Resources, instead of ADEQ. (Attachment A). The subcommittee also
considered a proposal from the State Mine Inspector (on file in the
Secretary of the Senate's Office). The subcommittee recommended the
AMA proposal, including the changes set forth in the memo to the
subcommittee dated 12/16/93.
The full committee met on December 16, 1993. In addition to
considering the report of the subcommittee, the full committee
considered a proposal for a state mined land reclamation program
submitted by the Sierra Club and the Arizona League of Conservation
Voters. The full committee approved the subcommittee' s
recommendations and further recommended that the administrative and
enforcement agency should be determined in the legislative process.
r_~~~;
.~,...>.._----. _. -- -"
Arizona ;.§tatc;.§cnatc
JOHN GREENE
PRESIDENT
W4ocnix, ~~ri~omt
August 5, 1993
The Honorable Jim Buster
Arizona State Senate
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dear Senator Buster:
I have the pleasure of informing you that Speaker Killian and I have agreed
to form an ad hoc Joint Legislative Study Committee on Mined Land Reclamation,
and I have appointed you to serve as Co-Chair. The Committee shall be charged
with studying the issue of reclamation of mined land in Arizona. The Committee
may further give consideration to the subject of abandoned mines and shall make
recommendations to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of
Representatives by December 15, 1993, after which time the Committee shall be
terminated.
Speaker Killian and I have appointed the following members to the
Committee:
Senator Buster, Co-Chair
Senator Phillips
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
Senator Hardt
Representat i ve Keegan, Co-Cha i r
Representative Kaites
Representative Conner
Representative Brown
Representative Clark
Thank you for your willingness to serve on this Committee. I look forward
to your report.
JG:mkm
Sincerely,
~~
U~~~~~~reene
President of the Senate
cc: Speaker Mark Killian, Arizona House of Representatives
Susan McJunkin, Senate Research Analyst
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
on
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
MEMBERSHIP:
SENATE MEMBERS:
Senator Jim Buster, Co-Chair
Senator Gus Arzberger
Senator Larry Chesley
Senator A.V. "Bill" Hardt
Senator Ed Phillips
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE MEMBERS:
Representative John Keegan, Co-Chair
Representative Jack Brown
Representative Harry Clark
Representative Pat Conner
Representative John Kaites
MEETING DATES
Thursday, October 7, 1993
Wednesday, November 15, 1993
Subcommittee
Thursday, December 16, 1993
Subcommittee
Thursday, December 16, 1993
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITfEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Recommendation:
Introduce legislation to establish a state Mined Land Reclamation Program, to be
administered and enforced by a state agency yet to be determined. The program should provide
for the reclamation of surface disturbances on private land created by new and existing hard
rock mining and exploration operations. The program should require the filing a reclamation
plan to be approved by the state, which should include feasible reclamation measures to be
undertaken by the owner or operator of the mining unit or exploration operation. The program
should also require the filing of a financial assurance mechanism by the owner or operator in
order to insure the timely completion of reclamation measures. (See Attachments A and B)
NOTE: Allproposals and informational materials submitted to the committee or subcommittee
are on file with the Secretary of the Senate.
MINED LAND RECLAMATION ACT
(12/15193)
Table of Contents
Chapter 5
Mined Land Reclamation
Article 1. Administration
27-901. Definitions 1
27-902. Mined land reclamation section in department of mines and
mineral resources: integration and coordination of pro~ams and
activities 2
27-903. A~eements for coordination with other ~overnmental a~encies
and landowners 3
27-904. Rules 3
Article 2. General Regulatory Provisions
27-921. Surface disturbances created by new exploration operation or
minin~ unit
27-922. Surface disturbances created by existin~ exploration operation
or minin~ unit: extension: continuin~ operations
27-923. Creating surface disturbances of five acres or less
27-924. Inactive mining units
27-925. Remedial response to emer~encies and ~overnmental orders
27-926. Initiation. extension and completion of reclamation
27-927. Substantial changes to approved reclamation plan
27-928. Transferring an approved reclamation plan.
27-929. Notice of plan or substantial change
27-930. Public disclosure of information
27-931. Variances
27-932. Coordination with other governmental agencies
27-933. Fee
27-934. Appealing denials
Article 3. Exploration Operations Reclamation Plan
27-951. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
ATTACHr1ENT A
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
27-952. Time for submission
27-953. Notice of complete. incomplete or denied plan
27-954. ,=Approval: criteria
27-955. Be~nnin~ new eXlJloration operations
27-956. Annual renewal
Article 4. Mining Unit Reclamation Plan
27-971. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
27-972. Notice of complete. incomplete or denied plan
27-973. Approval: criteria
27-974. Preservation and conservation of soil: exceptions
27-975. Features excluded from reclamation plan or allowed to
remain followin~ reclamation: public protection measures
Article 5. Financial Assurance
27-991. Financial assurance requirements: form
27-992. Minin~ unit or existin~ eXlJloration operation
27-993. New eXlJloration operation
27-994. Financial assurance for surface disturbances of five acres
or less
27-995. Duplication of financial assurance not required
27-996. Incremental financial assurance
27-997. Release of financial assurance
27-998. Rules: release. forfeiture or exercise of financial assurance
Article 6. Enforcement
27-1021. Inspections
27-1022. Compliance orders
27-1023. Enforcement action on reclamation plan approval
27-1024. Injunctive relief: civil penalties
27-1025. A~ency order: appeal
27-1026. Violation: classification
Sec. 2. Requirements for enactment
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
16
16
16
Rough Draft
Folder #0529
12/15/93 DMT/dt
REFERENCE TITLE: mined land reclamation act
State of Arizona
Senate
Forty-first Legislature
Second Regular Session
1994
S. B.
Introduced by ___
AN ACT
AMENDING TITLE 27, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING CHAPTER 5; RELATING
TO MINES.
1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 27, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by adding
3 chapter 5, to read:
4 CHAPTER 5
5 MINED LAND RECLAMATION
6 ARTICLE 1. ADMINISTRATION
7 27-901. Definitions
8 IN THIS CHAPTER, UNLESS THE CONTEXT OTHERWISE REQUIRES:
9 1. IIBOARD II MEANS THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
10 2. IIDEPARTMENT II MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF MI NES AND MI NERAL
11 RESOURCES.
12 3. IIDIRECTOR II MEANS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT.
13 4. IIEXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION II MEANS AN EXPLORATION OPERATION
14 THAT IS ONGOING AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION.
15 5. EXISTING MINING UNITJ' MEANS AMINING UNIT, OTHER THAN A NEW
16 MINING UNIT, THAT CONTINUED OPERATIONS AFTER JANUARY 1, 1986.
17 6. IIEXPLORATION OPERATIONS" MEANS ACTI VITI ES THAT CREATE
18 DISTURBANCES ON THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH OUTSIDE AMINING FACILITY, THAT
19 ARE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE, LOCATION, EXTENT, DEPTH OR GRADE
20 OF MINERALS AND THAT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTING ACCESS ROADS AND DRILL PADS.
21 7. II INACTI VE MI NI NG UNIT" MEANS AMI NI NG UNIT THAT HAS NOT BEEN
22 OPERATED AFTER JANUARY 1, 1986 AND FOR WHICH THERE IS A CURRENT
23 IDENTIFIABLE OWNER OR OPERATOR OTHER THAN THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT.
1 8.:=)!.MAINTENANCE" MEANS AN ACTIVITY TO PRESERVE OR REPAIR THE
2 FUNCTION OF PREVIOUSLY DISTURBED LAND THAT DOES NOT EXPAND THE AREA OF THE
3 DISTURBANCE, INCLUDING GRADING ROADS, REPAIRING BERMS OR DAMS AND DREDGING
4 SEDIMENTATION BASINS.
5 9. "MINERAL" MEANS ANY METALLIFEROUS MATERIAL EXTRACTED FROM THE
6 EARTH, INCLUDING GOLD, SILVER, COPPER, MOLYBDENUM, ZINC AND LEAD AND OTHER
7 MATERIALS THAT ARE USED AS FEEDSTOCKS IN PRODUCING METALLIFEROUS
8 MATERIALS.
9 10. "MINING FACILITY" MEANS PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED, OPERATED OR
10 MANAGED BY THE SAME PERSON TO DEVELOP, MINE, CONCENTRATE OR LEACH MINERALS
11 AND ASSOCIATED MINERAL RECOVERY ACTIVITIES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE SMELTING,
12 REFINING, FABRICATING OR OTHER METAL PROCESSING FACILITIES AND MATERIALS
13 ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE FACILITIES. PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS BUT
14 WITHIN THE SAME GEOGRAPHICAL AREA AND OPERATED AS ASINGLE MINING COMPLEX
15 IS CONSIDERED TO BE ASINGLE MINING FACILITY.
16 11. "MINING UNIT" MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL PORTION OF A MINING FACILITY
17 THAT ENCOMPASSES ONE OR MORE SURFACE DISTURBANCES.
18 12. "NEW EXPLORATION OPERATION" MEANS AN EXPLORATION OPERATION THAT
19 BEGINS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INITIAL RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
20 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
21 13. "NEW MINING UNIT" MEANS A MINING UNIT -AT WHICH SURFACE
22 DISTURBANCES BEGIN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INITIAL RULES ADOPTED
23 BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
24 14. "RECLAMATION" MEANS MEASURES THAT ARE TAKEN ON SURFACE
25 DISTURBANCES AT EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING UNITS TO ACHIEVE
26 STABILITY AND SAFETY CONSISTENT WITH POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES
27 SPECIFIED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
28 15. "SOIL" MEANS TOPSOIL, SUITABLE SUBSTRATA OR OTHER PLANT GROWTH
29 MEDIA THAT WILL SUSTAIN VEGETATION.
30 16. "STABI LITY" MEANS THE CONDITION OF LAND WITH RESPECT TO ITS
31 EROSION POTENTIAL AND ABILITY TO WITHSTAND SEISMIC ACTIVITY.
32 17. "SURFACE DISTURBANCE" MEANS CLEARING, COVERING OR MOVING LAND BY
33 MEANS OF MECHANIZED EQUIPMENT FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT AND
34 PRODUCTION PURPOSES, BUT DOES NOT INCLUDE SURVEYING, ASSESSMENT AND
35 LOCATION WORK, SEISMIC WORK, MAINTENANCE AND OTHER SUCH ACTIVITIES THAT
36 CREATE ADE MINIMIS DISTURBANCE.
37 27-902. Mined land reclamation section in department of
38 mines and mineral resources; integration and
39 coordination of programs and activities
40 A. THE BOARD SHALL ESTABLISH AMINED LAND RECLAMATION SECTION IN
41 THE DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND MINERAL RESOURCES AND EMPLOY STAFF WHO HAVE
42 THE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE EXPERIENCE IN MINING AND RECLAIMING MINED
43 LANDS.
44 B. THIS CHAPTER DOES NOT REPLACE OR DUPLICATE PROVISIONS OF TITLE
45 49 THAT REGULATE EXPLORATION AND MINING OPERATIONS TO PROTECT PUBLIC
46 HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
47 C. THE BOARD SHALL INTEGRATE ALL PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE
48 DEPARTMENT THAT APPLY TO EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING FACILITIES FOR
-2-
1 PURPOSES OF ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT AND AVOID REDUNDANT,
2 INCONSISfE~T OR CONTRADICTORY RECLAMATION, INSPECTION, ADMINISTRATION,
3 ENFORCEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
4 D. THE REQUIREMENTS OF A RECLAMATION PLAN UNDER THIS CHAPTER, A
5 CLOSURE PLAN FOR THE SAME MINING UNIT REQUIRED UNDER TITLE 49, CHAPTER 2,
6 ARTICLE 3 AND OTHER PROVISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THIS TITLE AND TITLE
7 49, INCLUDING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, SHALL NOT BE REDUNDANT,
8 INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY. THIS CHAPTER DOES NOT SUPERSEDE THE
9 CLOSURE PLAN REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 49, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 3.
10 27-903. Agreements for coordination with other
11 governmental agencies and landowners
12 THE BOARD MAY ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS PURSUANT TO TITLE 11, CHAPTER 7,
13 ARTICLE 3 WITH THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND
14 MANAGEMENT, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND OTHER AGENCIES THAT MANAGE
15 PUBLIC LANDS AND TAKE OTHER APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO COORDINATE THE REVIEW
16 AND APPROVAL OF RECLAMATION PLANS, INCLUDING DESIGNATING A LEAD AGENCY FOR
17 RECLAMATION PLAN REVIEW AND ACTION. THE BOARD SHALL AVOID REDUNDANT,
18 INCONSISTENT OR CONTRADICTORY RECLAMATION, INSPECTION, ADMINISTRATION,
19 ENFORCEMENT AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS.
20 27-904. Rules
21 NOT LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1995 THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES
22 CONSISTENT WITH THIS CHAPTER FOR THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES
23 AT EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING UNITS AND FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
24 THIS CHAPTER.
25 ARTICLE 2. GENERAL REGULATORY PROVISIONS
26 27-921. Surface disturbances created by new exploration
27 operation or mining unit
28 AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANEW EXPLORATION OPERATION OR NEW MINING
29 UNIT SHALL NOT CREATE ASURFACE DISTURBANCE OF MORE THAN FIVE CONTIGUOUS
30 ACRES UNTIL ARECLAMATION PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR THE
31 EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT ARE APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OR ARE
32 OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THIS CHAPTER.
33 27-922. Surface disturbances created by existing
34 exploration operation or mining unit;
35 extension; continuing operations
36 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
37 EXISTING MINING UNIT WITH SURFACE DISTURBANCES OF MORE THAN FIVE
38 CONTIGUOUS ACRES SHALL SUBMIT ARECLAMATION PLAN WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE
39 EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE INITIAL RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS
40 CHAPTER.
41 B. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY PETITION THE DIRECTOR FOR AN EXTENSION
42 OF TIME TO SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN. THE DIRECTOR SHALL GRANT THE
43 EXTENSION ON A SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE, INCLUDING THE NEED TO COORDINATE THE
44 PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION OF A RECLAMATION PLAN WITH AN AQUIFER
45 PROTECTION PERMIT APPLICATION UNDER TITLE 49, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 2 OR WITH
46 OTHER PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
47 MINING UNIT.
-3-
1 C. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
2 EXISTING~M1~NING UNIT MAY CONTINUE OPERATIONS, INCLUDING CREATING SURFACE
3 DISTURBANCES, UNTIL THE DIRECTOR TAKES FINAL ACTION ON THE RECLAMATION
4 PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM.
5 D. THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES CREATED IN WHOLE OR IN
6 PART BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER AND THE RULES ADOPTED
7 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER MAY PRESENT SPECIAL TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC
8 CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE NOT ENCOUNTERED FOR NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCES. THE
9 DIRECTOR SHALL CONSIDER THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE EXISTING SURFACE
10 DISTURBANCES, RELEVANT SITE-SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TECHNICAL AND
11 ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY OF RECLAIMING SUCH SURFACE DISTURBANCES. THE
12 DIRECTOR SHALL NOT REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION OF EXISTING MINING
13 UNITS TO SATISFY THE RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER.
14 27-923. Creating surface disturbances of five acres or
15 less
16 A. AN OWN~OR OPERATOR OF AEXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT
17 MAY CREATE ASURFACE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES OR LESS AFTER
18 THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD PURSUANT TO THIS
19 CHAPTER ONLY ON:
20 1. PRIOR NOTIFICATION TO THE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF
21 THE PLANNED SURFACE DISTURBANCES AND THE RECLAMATION MfASURES CONSISTENT
22 WITH THIS CHAPTER.
23 2. PAYMENT OF A FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE BOARD BY RULE.
24 3. PROVIDING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE IN ASTANDARD AMOUNT PURSUANT TO
25 ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER.
26 B. THE DIRECTOR MAY REQUIRE ARECLAMATION PLAN UNDER ARTICLE 3 OR 4
27 OF THIS CHAPTER IN THE CASE OF ASERIES OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES OF FIVE
28 CONTIGUOUS ACRES OR LESS BY THE SAME OWNER OR OPERATOR.
29 27-924. Inactive mining units
30 A. AT AN INACTIVE MINING UNIT, THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE
31 RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER:
32 1. VOLUNTARY RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED BY FEDERAL
33 OR STATE LAW, REGULATION OR PERMIT.
34 2. ACTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH OTHER LOCAL, STATE OR
35 FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, PERMITS, ORDERS OR DECREES.
36 3. MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES.
37 B. EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENT, MINING,
38 CONCENTRATING AND LEACHING ACTIVITIES AT AN INACTIVE MINING UNIT ARE
39 SUBJECT TO THE RECLAMATION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER ONLY WITH RESPECT
40 TO NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCES CREATED BY THOSE OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES.
41 27-925. Remedial response to emergencies and governmental
42 orders
43 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR IS NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NOTICE OR OBTAIN
44 APPROVAL OF ARECLAMATION PLAN OR FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM UNDER THIS
45 CHAPTER BEFORE CREATING A SURFACE DISTURBANCE PURSUANT TO AREMEDIAL
46 ACTION IN RESPONSE TO AN EMERGENCY OR TO AGOVERNMENT ORDER TO PREVENT OR
47 MITIGATE AND ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL RELEASE OF POLLUTANTS INTO THE
48 ENVIRONMENT.
-4-
1 B.c="+HE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL UPDATE THE RECLAMATION PLAN AND
2 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER COMPLETING THE
3 EMERGENCY OR REMEDIAL MEASURE.
4 27-926. Initiation, extension and completion of
5 reclamation
6 A. IF A SURFACE DISTURBANCE CANNOT BE PRACTICABLY RECLAIMED
7 CONCURRENTLY WITH AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AT A MINING UNIT,
8 RECLAMATION SHALL BE INITIATED EITHER:
9 1. WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER COMPLETING THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR
10 MINING UNIT.
11 2. WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER CESSATION OF MINING ACTIVITY IF THE OWNER
12 OR OPERATOR DOES NOT INTEND TO RESUME THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
13 UNIT OPERATION.
14 3. AS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW.
15 B. THE DIRECTOR SHALL EXTEND THE PERIOD IN WHICH TO INITIATE
16 RECLAMATION UNDER SUBSECTION A, WITH UP TO THREE SUBSEQUENT FIVE-YEAR
17 EXTENSIONS, IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
18 UNIT DEMONSTRATES A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE PROJECT OR OPERATION
19 WILL RESUME, BASED ON ACONSIDERATION OF FACTORS, INCLUDING:
20 1. THE PRESENCE OF ADDITIONAL MINERALIZATION OF THE COMMODITY BEING
21 MINED OR OTHER COMMODITIES IN COMMERCE.
22 2. HISTORICAL FLUCTUATIONS IN THE VALUE OF THE COMMODITY BEING
23 MINED OR OTHER COMMODITIES PRESENT IF THEY CAN BE MINED USING THE SAME
24 DISTURBANCES.
25 3. THE DESIGN LIFE OF ANY BENEFICIATION PROCESS COMPONENTS EXISTING
26 AT AMINING UNIT.
27 C. ONCE INITIATED, THE FINAL RECLAMATION MEASURES SHALL BE
28 PERFORMED AS STATED IN THE APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN UNLESS THE
29 EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT IS REACTIVATED.
30 27-927. Substantial changes to approved reclamation plan
31 A. THE DIRECTOR MUST APPROVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO AN APPROVED
32 RECLAMATION PLAN AS PROVIDED BY THIS SECTION BEFORE THE CHANGE IS
33 IMPLEMENTED.
34 B. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
35 UNIT SHALL SUBMIT ANOTICE OF APROPOSED CHANGE TO THE DIRECTOR DESCRIBING
36 THE PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND WHETHER IT CONSTITUTES A
37 SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN. IF THE DIRECTOR
38 FAILS TO RESPOND WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS, THE CHANGE IS CONSIDERED TO BE
39 CONSISTENT WITH THE OPERATION'S OR UNIT'S APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN.
40 C. IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE CHANGE IS SUBSTANTIAL THE
41 DIRECTOR SHALL:
42 1. NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE DECISION WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS
43 AFTER RECEIVING THE NOTICE.
44 2. REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO SUBMIT AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN
45 FOR APPROVAL. THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE AMENDED PLAN
46 WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE AMENDED PLAN.
-5-
1 C. THE FOLLOWING CHANGES ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE SUBSTANTIAL, AND
2 THE OWN~~ OR OPERATOR IS REQUIRED TO FILE ONLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE
3 RECLAMATION PLAN AND MODIFY THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AS NECESSARY:
4 1. NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCES THAT CAN BE RECLAIMED IN AMANNER THAT
5 IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE MANNER OR RECLAMATION INCLUDED IN THE
6 APPROVED PLAN.
7 2. CHANGES IN THE SPECIFIC TECHNIQUES FOR RECLAMATION, INCLUDING
8 THE EQUIPMENT USED AND THE MIXES OF SEEDS AND SOILS.
9 3. CHANGES IN LOCATION OR CONFIGURATION OR ACREAGE OF SURFACE
10 DISTURBANCES UNLESS THE CHANGES SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT THE RECLAMATION
11 MEASURES STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
12 D. BEFORE IMPLEMENTING A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN AN APPROVED
13 RECLAMATION PLAN, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT TO, AND RECEIVE
14 APPROVAL FROM, THE DIRECTOR AREVISED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM TO
15 ACCOUNT FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.
16 27-928. Transferring an approved reclamation plan
17 A. ARECLAMATION PLAN MAY BE TRANSFERRED FROM ONE PERSON TO
18 ANOTHER, BY OPERATION OF LAW OR OTHERWISE, IF THE CURRENT OWNER OR
19 OPERATOR NOTIFIES THE DIRECTOR IN WRITING BEFORE THE TRANSFER. THE NOTICE
20 SHALL INCLUDE THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND STATUTORY AGENT OF
21 THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PLAN WILL BE TRANSFERRED, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
22 PROPOSED TRANSFER, A PROPOSED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM AND OTHER
23 INFORMATION THE DIRECTOR MAY DETERMINE TO BE NECESSARY BY RULE.
24 B. THE DIRECTOR MAY DENY A TRANSFER ON DETERMINING THAT THE
25 PROPOSED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 5 OF
26 THIS CHAPTER OR THAT THE TRANSFEREE IS NOT CAPABLE OF OPERATING IN
27 COMPLIANCE WITH THIS ARTICLE, THE RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE
28 OR THE CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE PLAN. THE DIRECTOR SHALL ISSUE
29 NOTICE OF AND THE REASONS FOR THE DENIAL WITHIN TEN WORKING DAYS AFTER
30 RECEIVING THE PROPOSED TRANSFER. ADENIAL OF THE PLAN TRANSFER IS SUBJECT
31 TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6.
32 C. ON RECEIVING THE APPROVED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FROM THE
33 TRANSFEREE THE DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
34 PROVIDED BY THE TRANSFEROR.
35 27-929. Notice of plan or substantial change
36 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE OF APROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN OR
37 A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO AN APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN ONCE EACH WEEK FOR
38 TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE COUNTY
39 OR COUNTIES IN WHICH THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT IS OR WILL
40 BE LOCATED. IF THERE IS NO SUCH NEWSPAPER, THE DIRECTOR SHALL GIVE NOTICE
41 IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION THAT IS PUBLISHED IN AN ADJOINING
42 COUNTY.
43 B. THE NOTICE SHALL BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN
44 OR CHANGE AND STATE THAT ANY PERSON WHO MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE
45 PLAN OR CHANGE MAY:
46 1. FILE A WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE PLAN OR SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE
47 WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER THE LAST PUBLICATION.
48 2. REQUEST APUBLIC HEARING.
-6-
1 C. AN OBJECTION SHALL STATE THE NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS OF THE
2 OBJECTOR~-"~BE SIGNED BY THE OBJECTOR OR THE OBJECTOR'S AGENT OR ATTORNEY
3 AND CLEARLY STATE THE REASONS WHY THE PLAN OR CHANGE SHOULD BE DENIED.
4 GROUNDS FOR OBJECTION ARE LIMITED TO WHETHER THE PROPOSED PLAN OR CHANGE
5 MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL IN THIS CHAPTER.
6 D. IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT PUBLIC INTEREST, THE DIRECTOR MAY HOLD A
7 PUBLIC HEARING IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING
8 UNIT IS OR WILL BE LOCATED.
9 27-930. Public disclosure of information
10 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ANY RECORDS,
11 REPORTS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED OR PREPARED BY THE DIRECTOR OR A
12 DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, UNLESS ANOTICE ACCOMPANYING THE INFORMATION OR ANY
13 PART OF THE INFORMATION STATES THAT THE INFORMATION IS ATRADE SECRET AS
14 DEFINED IN SECTION 49-201.
15 B. IF THE DIRECTOR, ON HIS OWN OR FOLLOWING A REQUEST FOR
16 DISCLOSURE, DISAGREES WITH THE TRADE SECRET NOTICE, THE DIRECTOR MAY TAKE
17 APPROPRIATE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCEDURES IN SECTION 49-432,
18 SUBSECTIONS D, E AND F.
19 27-931. Variances
20 A. THE DIRECTOR MAY GRANT TO AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION
21 OPERATION OR MINING UNIT ACONDITIONAL ORDER ALLOWING JHE PERSON TO VARY
22 FROM ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER, ANY RULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS
23 CHAPTER OR ANY REQUIREMENT OR CONDITION OF ARECLAMATION PLAN ISSUED
24 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER IF THE DIRECTOR FINDS THAT ISSUING THE
25 CONDITIONAL ORDER WILL NOT ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.
26 B. THE DIRECTOR MAY APPROVE INNOVATIVE RECLAMATION OR OTHER
27 MEASURES PROPOSED BY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT VARY FROM THE RECLAMATION
28 STANDARDS OF THIS CHAPTER, THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS UNDER
29 ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER OR THE RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER
30 AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING AND ON ASHOWING THEAT THE INNOVATIVE OR OTHER
31 MEASURES CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO ACHIEVE THE POST-MINING LAND USE
32 OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
33 27-932. Coordination with other governmental agencies
34 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
35 RECLAMATION PLANS WITH THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT, THE UNITED STATES BUREAU
36 OF LAND MANAGEMENT, THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE AND OTHER AGENCIES
37 THAT MANAGE PUBLIC LANDS ON WHICH EXPLORATION OPERATIONS OR MINING
38 FACILITIES ARE LOCATED, WITHIN THE RESPECTIVE JURISDICTIONS, THROUGH
39 MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT OR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS THAT DESIGNATE A LEAD
40 AGENCY FOR RECLAMATION PLAN REVIEW AND ACTION. THIS COORDINATION IS
41 INTENDED TO AVOID DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS TO INSPECT EXPLORATION OPERATIONS
42 AND MINING FACILITIES AND REVIEW AND ENFORCE RECLAMATION PLANS. THE
43 MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE THAT NO FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MAY
44 BE REQUIRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE THAT WILL DUPLICATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
45 REQUIRED UNDER ANY OTHER LAW OR AGREEMENT.
46 B. IF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AMINING UNIT IS LOCATED ON LAND
47 ADMINISTERED BY A FEDERAL AGENCY, AN APPROVED FEDERAL RECLAMATION PLAN AND
48 A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR THE FEDERAL LAND THAT ARE CONSISTENT
-7-
-
ARTICLE 3. EXPLORATION OPERATIONS RECLAMATION PLAN
27-951. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
A. APERSON WHO CONDUCTS EXPLORATION OPERATIONS THAT WILL CREATE
MORE THAN FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE SHALL SUBMIT A
RECLAMATION PLAN TO THE DIRECTOR. THE RECLAMATION PLAN SHALL:
1. IDENTIFY THE COUNTY OR COUNTIES IN WHICH EXPLORATION OPERATION
WILL BE CONDUCTED.
2. STATE THE RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO RECLAIM
ACCESS ROADS, DRILL PADS, DRILL HOLES, TRENCHES AND OTHER EXPLORATION
WORKINGS WHERE THE OPERATOR CONDUCTS EXPLORATION OPERATIONS IN THIS STATE.
B. AN OPERATOR MAY SUBMIT ASINGLE RECLAMATION PLAN COVERING ALL
NEW AND EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS IN THE STATE.
27-952. Time for submission
A. AN OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR A NEW
EXPLORATION OPERATION AT LEAST THIRTY DAYS BEFORE BEGINNING SURFACE
DISTURBANCES OF OVER FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES.
B. AN OPERATOR SHALL SUBMIT A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR AN EXISTING
EXPLORATION OPERATION WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER. EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS
MAY CONTINUE PENDING THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION ON THE PROPOSED PLAN AND
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM.
27-953. Notice of complete, incomplete or denied plan
A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OPERATOR THAT ARECLAMATION PLAN
IS COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE PLAN.
B. IF THE DIRECTOR NOTIFIES THE OPERATOR THAT APLAN IS INCOMPLETE
OR DENIED, THE DIRECTOR SHALL INCLUDE AWRITTEN EXPLANATION STATING THE
WITH TH~~~REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER SUPERSEDE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A
RECLAMATioN PLAN AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY
THIS CHAPTER. IF THE EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT IS CONDUCTED ON
A SITE THAT INCLUDES BOTH FEDERAL AND PRIVATE LAND, COMPLIANCE WITH THE
FEDERAL PLAN IS SUFFICIENT IF THAT PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY PROVIDES FOR THE
RECLAMATION OF THE SITE AND A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM REQUIRED BY
THIS CHAPTER.
27-933. Fee
A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL ASSESS AND COLLECT FROM THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AMINING UNIT AREASONABLE FEE BASED ON THE
REASONABLE DIRECT COSTS TO PROCESS, REVIEW, APPROVE OR DENY THE PLAN AND
ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE PLAN. THE FEE SHALL BE REVISED ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS. THE BOARD SHALL ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR THOSE COSTS BY RULE.
B. THE INITIAL APPLICATION FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE DOLLAR PER ACRE
OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE COVERED BY THE RECLAMATION PLAN, WITH THE BALANCE
OF THE FEE TO BE PAID ON PLAN APPROVAL. THE TOTAL FEE COLLECTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS PER PLAN.
27-934. Appealing denials
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING UNIT MAY
APPEAL THE DIRECTOR'S DENIAL OF APLAN AS PROVIDED BY TITLE 13, CHAPTER 7,
ARTICLE 6.
123456
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
-8-
1 REASONS FOR DENIAL INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTING UNACCEPTABLE
2 PARTS OF"-fHE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER.
3 27-954. Approval; criteria
4 THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE A RECLAMATION PLAN FOR EXPLORATION
5 OPERATIONS WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ACOMPLETE PLAN IF THE PLAN
6 PROVIDES FOR THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES AT THE EXPLORATION
7 OPERATIONS ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS, AS APPLICABLE:
8 1. EXPLORATION ACCESS ROADS THAT THE OPERATOR CONSTRUCTS WHICH WILL
9 NOT BE PART OF APOST-EXPLORATION USE SHALL BE RECLAIMED IN A TIMELY
10 MANNER AFTER THE EXPLORATION IS COMPLETED. IF AGOVERNMENTAL UNIT OR
11 AGENCY WILL ACCEPT DEDICATION OR CONVEYANCE OF AN ACCESS ROAD, RECLAMATION
12 IS NOT REQUIRED. RECLAMATION SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING CULVERTS, RESTORING
13 DRAINAGE TO ITS GENERAL PRE-DISTURBANCE CONFIGURATION, RIPPING THE ROAD
14 SURFACE TO REDUCE COMPACTION AND AID REVEGETATION AND CONTROLLING ACCESS
15 OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES TO THE RECLAIMED AREA.
16 2. HOLES THAT ARE DRILLED FOR MINERAL EXPLORATION PURPOSES, UNLESS
17 COMPLETED FOR WATER MONITORING, WITHDRAWAL OR OTHER USE, SHALL BE PLUGGED,
18 SEALED OR CAPPED PROMPTLY AFTER THEIR USE IS COMPLETED AS PRESCRIBED BY
19 THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SAFETY OF
20 PERSONS, ANIMALS AND MACHINERY IN THE AREA.
21 3. DRILL PADS SHALL BE RESHAPED PROMPTLY AFT£R COMPLETION OF
22 DRILLING TO PREVENT EROSION AND TO ESTABLISH CONTOURS THAT ARE GENERALLY
23 COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREAS OR RIPPED TO REDUCE COMPACTION AND AID
24 REVEGETATION AND, IF APPROPRIATE, SEEDED TO MINIMIZE EROSION.
25 4. MUD PITS THAT ARE USED FOR DRILLING FLUIDS AND PRODUCED WATERS
26 SHALL BE RECLAIMED AFTER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ARE REMOVED AND DISPOSED OF,
27 IF NECESSARY, AND AFTER THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY DRY BY RESHAPING TO CONTOURS
28 THAT ARE GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREAS. IF IT IS
29 APPROPRIATE TO THE AREA, SUITABLE GROWTH MEDIA SHALL BE SPREAD AND SEEDED
30 OVER THE PIT AREA.
31 5. EXPLORATION TRENCHES AND PITS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AND RECLAIMED
32 AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN. IF THE
33 TRENCH OR PIT WILL REMAIN OPEN, MEASURES SHALL BE TAKEN TO STABILIZE THE
34 SIDES TO CONTROL EROSION AND TO RESTRICT ACCESS. TRENCH AND PIT
35 RECLAMATION SHALL INCLUDE BACKFILLING, RESHAPING TO CONTOURS GENERALLY
36 COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREAS AND, IF APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA,
37 SEEDING TO REESTABLISH VEGETATION.
38 6. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN CLEARED BY. BLADING WITH MECHANIZED
39 EQUIPMENT DURING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESHAPED AFTER
40 EXPLORATION IS COMPLETED, UNLESS USED FOR APOST-EXPLORATION USE, TO BE
41 GENERALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT AREA. COMPACTED AREAS SHALL BE
42 RIPPED TO AID REVEGETATION.
43 27-955. Beginning new exploration operations
44 NEW EXPLORATION OPERATIONS MAY BEGIN WHEN BOTH OF THE FOLLOWING
45 OCCUR:
46 1. THE DIRECTOR APPROVES THE RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE EXPLORATION
47 OPERATIONS OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE DIRECTOR RECEIVES A COMPLETE
48 RECLAMATION PLAN IF THE DIRECTOR FAILS TO TAKE ACTION.
-9-
1 2. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTOR AS
2 REQUIREO=gy ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER.
3 27-956. Annual renewal
4 ARECLAMATION PLAN FOR EXPLORATION OPERATIONS IS RENEWABLE ANNUALLY
5 ON:
6 1. PAYMENT OF THE FEE ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTOR.
7 2. MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN TO ADDRESS TYPES OF SURFACE
8 DISTURBANCES THAT WILL BE CONDUCTED DURING EXPLORATION OPERATIONS BUT HAVE
9 NOT BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
10 3. SUBMISSION OF ANY ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE, IF NECESSARY.
11 ARTICLE 4. MINING UNIT RECLAMATION PLAN
12 27-971. Submission and contents of reclamation plan
13 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY SUBMIT ASINGLE RECLAMATION PLAN THAT
14 COVERS MULTIPLE MINING UNITS AS AMINING FACILITY.
15 B. THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION PLAN SHALL INCLUDE:
16 1. THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR AND AN
17 INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL BE THE REGULATORY CONTACT.
18 2. A STATEMENT THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY
19 FOR THE RECLAMATION OF SURFACE DISTURBANCES THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
20 MINING UNIT CONSISTENT WITH THIS CHAPTER AND THE RULES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
21 THIS CHAPTER.
22 3. THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP AND USE OF THE LAND INCLUDED IN THE MINING
23 UNIT.
24 4. THE PROPOSED POST-MINING USE OF THE LAND.
25 5. A DESCRIPTION OF THE MINING UNIT AND THE PROPOSED SURFACE
26 DISTURBANCES THAT WILL BE CREATED.
27 6. THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FINAL TOPOGRAPHY, INCLUDING THE FINAL
28 SLOPES OF LEACH PILES, OVERBURDEN OR LOW GRADE ROCK STOCKPILES AND TAILING
29 PILES.
30 7. A NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION OF ROADS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE
31 MINING UNIT.
32 8. THE ACREAGE AFFECTED BY EACH TYPE OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE AND A
33 MAP OF THE MINING UNIT AREA SHOWING EACH SURFACE DISTURBANCE.
34 9. THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
35 THE POST-MINING LAND USE INCLUDING INFORMATION CONCERNING:
36 (a) THE MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO RESTRICT PUBLIC ACCESS TO
37 PITS, ADITS, SHAFTS AND OTHER SURFACE FEATURES THAT MAY BE A HAZARD TO
38 PUBLIC SAFETY.
39 (b) THE MEASURES THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO ADDRESS EROSION CONTROL AND
40 STABILITY.
41 (c) THE REVEGETATION, CONSERVATION OR TESTING MEASURES THAT WILL BE
42 TAKEN.
43 (d) CARE AND MONITORING OF THE REVEGETATED AREAS OF THE RECLAMATION
44 SITE AS PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER.
45 (e) A PROPOSED TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR BEGINNING SURFACE
46 DISTURBANCES AND THE BEGINNING AND COMPLETING THE RECLAMATION MEASURES.
-10-
1 (fl~~THE ESTIMATED COSTS TO PERFORM EACH OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION
2 MEASURES-~OR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
3 UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THIS CHAPTER.
4 27-972. Notice of complete, incomplete or denied plan
5 A. THE DIRECTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT THE PLAN IS
6 COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE PLAN.
7 B. THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE APLAN FOR NEW MINING
8 UNITS WITHIN NINETY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ACOMPLETE PLAN.
9 C. IF THE DIRECTOR NOTIFIES THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THAT A PLAN IS
10 INCOMPLETE OR DENIED, THE DIRECTOR SHALL INCLUDE AWRITTEN EXPLANATION
11 STATING THE REASONS FOR DENIAL INCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTING
12 UNACCEPTABLE PARTS OF THE PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
13 CHAPTER.
14 27-973. Approval; criteria
15 THE DIRECTOR SHALL APPROVE ARECLAMATION PLAN FOR MINING UNITS IF
16 THE PLAN PROVIDES FOR RECLAMATION MEASURES FOR SURFACE DISTURBANCES THAT
17 ARE:
18 1. NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE ASAFE AND STABLE CONDITION SUITABLE FOR
19 THE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
20 2. COMPATIBLE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES REGARDING EROSION
21 CONTROL AND SEISMIC ACTIVITY FOR THE APPLICABLE SEISMIC20NE.
22 B. IN EVALUATING THE RECLAMATION PLAN, THE DIRECTOR SHALL CONSIDER
23 THE TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY OF THE PROPOSED RECLAMATION
24 MEASURES, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SITE-SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE
25 MINING UNIT AND THE PROPOSED POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES AS STATED IN
26 THE RECLAMATION PLAN, INCLUDING:
27 1. GRAZING AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND USE OBJECTIVES.
28 2. DEVELOPED WATER RESOURCES AND WATER MANAGEMENT PROJECTS.
29 3. CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS.
30 4. FISH OR WILDLIFE HABITAT.
31 5. FORESTRY.
32 6. HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
33 7. INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL, INCLUDING TOURISM.
34 8. MINING OR REMINING.
35 9. RECREATION.
36 10. RESIDENTIAL.
37 11. SCIENTIFIC OR EDUCATIONAL.
38 12. OTHER APPROPRIATE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES.
39 C. THE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVE STATED IN THE RECLAMATION
40 PLAN NEED NOT BE THE SAME USE OF THE LAND THAT EXISTED BEFORE THE MINING
41 FACILITY WAS LOCATED ON THE SITE.
42 27-974. Preservation and conservation of soil; exceptions
43 BEFORE CREATING ASURFACE DISTURBANCE THAT IS STATED TO BE RECLAIMED
44 BY REVEGETATION PURSUANT TO A NEW MINING UNIT RECLAMATION PLAN, THE OWNER
45 OR OPERATOR SHALL CONSERVE THE SOIL AS REASONABLY AVAILABLE FROM THE AREA
46 OF DISTURBANCE TO SUPPORT THE STATED REVEGETATION ON THAT SPECIFIC
47 DISTURBANCE AS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVES
-11-
1 STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN UNLESS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR DEMONSTRATES
2 ONE OR MORt OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS:
3 1. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT SOIL TO MAKE RECOVERY PRACTICABLE.
4 2. RECOVERY OF THE SOIL IS NOT PRACTICABLE DUE TO LIMITATIONS OF
5 TOPOGRAPHY, THICKNESS OF SOIL OR OTHER PHYSICAL, CLIMACTIC OR BIOLOGICAL
6 CONSTRAINTS.
7 3. DIRECT REVEGETATION OF THE DISTURBANCE, WITH OR WITHOUT SOIL
8 AMENDMENTS, IS NOT REASONABLE EXPECTED TO BE SUCCESSFUL.
9 27-975. Features excluded from reclamation plan or
10 allowed to remain following reclamation; public
11 protection measures
12 A. A RECLAMATION PLAN MAY EXCLUDE ANY PROVISION FOR RECLAIMING OPEN
13 PITS, ROCK FACES OR SUBSIDENCE AREAS THROUGH BACKFILLING OR RETURNING
14 MATERIALS TO THE OPEN PIT, ROCK FACE OR SUBSIDENCE AREA FROM WHICH IT WAS
15 EXTRACTED IF IT IS IMPRACTICABLE AND IF PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE OPEN PIT,
16 ROCK FACE OR SUBSIDENCE AREA, INCLUDING ANY SURROUNDING UNSTABLE AREAS OR
17 WALLS, IS RESTRICTED BY FENCING OR OTHER INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS.
18 B. THE FOLLOWING FACTORS SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING WHETHER
19 THE RECLAMATION OF OPEN PITS, ROCK FACES OR SUBSIDENCE AREAS IS
20 IMPRACTICABLE:
21 1. COST TO PERFORM THE RECLAMATION.
22 2. TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE.
23 3. GEOLOGY AND STABILITY OF THE SITE.
24 4. THE TIME REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE RECLAMATION.
25 5. THE CONSUMPTION OF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE
26 RECLAMATION.
27 6. FUTURE ACCESS TO MINERAL RESOURCES.
28 B. BUILDINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES MAY REMAIN AFTER RECLAMATION IF
29 ADEQUATE MEASURES ARE TAKEN TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY.
30 ARTICLE 5. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
31 27-991. Financial assurance requirements; form
32 A. OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF EXPLORATION OPERATIONS AND MINING UNITS
33 WHO CREATE SURFACE DISTURBANCES SHALL PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TO THE
34 DIRECTOR AS PROVIDED BY THIS ARTICLE.
35 B. ALLOWABLE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISMS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS
36 ARTICLE INCLUDE ANY OR ACOMBINATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
37 1. SURETY BOND.
38 2. CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT.
39 3. TRUST FUND WITH PAY-IN PERIOD.
40 4. LETTER OF CREDIT.
41 5. INSURANCE POLICY.
42 6. CERTIFICATE OF SELF INSURANCE.
43 7. CASH DEPOSIT WITH THE STATE TREASURER.
44 8. EVIDENCE OF ABILITY TO MEET A CORPORATE FINANCIAL TEST OR
45 CORPORATE GUARANTEES AS PROVIDED BY 40 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS SECTION
46 264.143(f).
47 9. ANNUITIES.
-12-
1 10. ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISMS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE TO
2 THE DIRErfoR.
3 27-992. Mining unit or existing exploration operation
4 A. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR A
5 NEW OR EXISTING MINING UNIT SHALL TRANSMIT AFINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
6 TO THE DIRECTOR WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER ARECLAMATION PLAN IS APPROVED.
7 THE DIRECTOR SHALL TAKE FINAL ACTION ON THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM
8 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER IT IS RECEIVED.
9 B. IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TO BE PROVIDED
10 FOR AN EXISTING EXPLORATION OPERATION OR AMINING UNIT, THE DIRECTOR SHALL
11 CONSIDER THE COSTS OF APPROVED RECLAMATION MEASURES STATED IN THE
12 RECLAMATION PLAN. IN COMPUTING RECLAMATION COSTS, THE DIRECTOR SHALL
13 ASSUME THAT THIRD PARTIES WILL PERFORM THE RECLAMATION MEASURES. THE
14 DIRECTOR SHALL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL ASSURANCE TO
15 THE COSTS OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR PERFORMING THE RECLAMATION MEASURES IF
16 THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL ABILITY TO
17 PERFORM THE NECESSARY RECLAMATION. FINANCIAL ABILITY SHALL BE ESTABLISHED
18 BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FINANCIAL MECHANISMS DESCRIBED IN 40 CODE OF FEDERAL
19 REGULATIONS SECTION 264.143(f).
20 C. EACH ~INANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM FOR AN EXISTING EXPLORATION
21 OR MINING UNIT APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIQE THE AMOUNT IN
22 CURRENT DOLLARS EQUAL TO THE COST TO:
23 1. PERFORM THE APPROVED RECLAMATION MEASURES STATED IN THE
24 RECLAMATION PLAN ON THE AREA OF SURFACE DISTURBANCE.
25 2. PROVIDE, IF NECESSARY, CONTINUED CARE AND MONITORING OF THE
26 AREAS STATED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN FOR REVEGETATION FOR NO MORE THAN
27 THREE GROWING SEASONS WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION OR OTHER
28 MAN-INDUCED INPUTS AFTER PERFORMING THE RECLAMATION MEASURES UNLESS THE
29 SUPPLEMENTAL INPUTS ARE PART OF THE POST-MINING LAND USE. NOTWITHSTANDING
30 THIS PARAGRAPH, REVEGETATION EFFORTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THE
31 POST-MINING LAND USE OBJECTIVE ARE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE IF THE
32 OWNER OR OPERATOR HAS TAKEN REASONABLE MEASURES TO ACHIEVE VEGETATIVE
33 SUCCESS. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC PRACTICABILITY AS IT RELATES TO
34 SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED POST-MINING LAND USE SHALL BE
35 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION.
36 D. THE DIRECTOR SHALL ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
37 EVERY FIVE YEARS OR MORE OFTEN AS NECESSARY TO ADJUST FOR NEW AREAS OF
38 PLANNED SURFACE DISTURBANCES, INFLATION OR TO REFLECT CHANGED COSTS
39 RESULTING FROM SUBSTANTIAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
40 27-993. New exploration operation
41 A. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A NEW EXPLORATION OPERATION SHALL
42 FURNISH A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE MECHANISM TO THE DIRECTOR IN AN AMOUNT
43 EQUIVALENT TO TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE OF NEW SURFACE DISTURBANCE,
44 UNLESS THE DIRECTOR APPROVES ACOST ESTIMATE FOR AN AMOUNT LESS THAN TWO
45 THOUSAND DOLLARS PER ACRE.
46 B. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY PROVIDE ASINGLE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
47 MECHANISM FOR ALL OF ITS EXPLORATION OPERATIONS CONDUCTED IN THIS STATE.
-13-
1 27~934. Financial assurance for surface disturbances of
2 ~~~ five acres or less
3 A PERSON WHO CREATES ASURFACE DISTURBANCE OF FIVE CONTIGUOUS ACRES
4 OR LESS PURSUANT TO SECTION 27-923 SHALL PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE UNDER
5 THIS ARTICLE IN ASTANDARD AMOUNT DETERMINED BY THE BOARD BY RULE. THE
6 DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THIS SECTION
7 WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER NOTIFICATION BY THE PERSON THAT THE RECLAMATION
8 MEASURES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED.
9 27-995. Duplication of financial assurance not required
10 FINANCIAL ASSURANCE IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THIS ARTICLE THAT
11 DUPLICATES FINANCIAL ASSURANCE THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER OTHER STATE OR
12 FEDERAL LAWS.
13 27-996. Incremental financial assurance
14 AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE UNDER THIS
15 ARTICLE ON AN INCREMENTAL BASIS FOR PLANNED SURFACE DISTURBANCES DESCRIBED
16 IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN.
17 27-997. Release of financial assurance
18 A. AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY APPLY TO THE DIRECTOR TO RELEASE ALL OR
19 PART OF THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PROVIDED UNDER THIS ARTICLE. THE
20 APPLICATION SHALL:
21 1. DESCRIBE THE RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT HAVE B~EN PERFORMED.
22 2. DESCRIBE ANY SURFACE DISTURBANCES INCLUDED IN THE RECLAMATION
23 PLAN THAT HAVE NOT BEEN DISTURBED.
24 3. CONTAIN AN ESTIMATE OF THE COSTS OF RECLAMATION MEASURES THAT
25 HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED.
26 B. WITHIN SIXTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING ACOMPLETE APPLICATION, THE
27 DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE ALL OR PART OF THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE EXCEPT FOR
28 ANY AMOUNT THAT IS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE RECLAMATION MEASURES
29 IDENTIFIED IN THE RECLAMATION PLAN. AFTER THE RECLAMATION MEASURES HAVE
30 BEEN PERFORMED, THE REMAINING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE SHALL BE RELEASED EXCEPT
31 FOR TEN PER CENT TO BE RETAINED FOR THE COSTS OF CARE, MONITORING AND ONE
32 RESEEDING, IF NECESSARY, FOR AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN REVEGETATED. THE
33 DIRECTOR SHALL RELEASE THE RETAINED MONIES AFTER APERIOD OF NOT MORE THAN
34 THREE GROWING SEASONS AFTER THE SUPPLEMENTAL MANAGEMENT OR OTHER
35 MAN-INDUCED INPUTS HAVE BEEN FINALLY REMOVED OR AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
36 SECTION 27-992, SUBSECTION B.
37 27-998. Rules; release, forfeiture or exercise of
38 financial assurance .
39 A. THE BOARD SHALL ADOPT RULES FOR REVIEWING AND ACTING ON:
40 1. APPLICATIONS TO RELEASE ALL OR PART OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE UNDER
41 THIS ARTICLE.
42 2. FORFEITURE OR EXERCISE OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE ON FAILURE TO
43 IMPLEMENT A RECLAMATION PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE.
44 B. THE RULES SHALL PROVIDE FOR WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL PRINCIPALS AND
45 SURETIES ON THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING.
46 ARTICLE 6. ENFORCEMENT
47 27-1021. Inspections
-14-
1 TH~"~DIRECTOR MAY ENTER AND INSPECT, DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS,
2 ANY EXPLORATION OPERATION OR MINING FACILITY THAT IS SUBJECT TO THIS
3 CHAPTER TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER. THE DIRECTOR SHALL
4 NOTIFY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WITHIN AREASONABLE TIME BEFORE ENTERING THE
5 PROPERTY FOR INSPECTION.
6 27-1022. Compliance orders
7 A. IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT A PERSON IS VIOLATING THIS
8 CHAPTER, ARULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR ANY CONDITION OF A
9 RECLAMATION PLAN APPROVED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR IS CAUSING AN
10 IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR TO THE
11 ENVIRONMENT, THE DIRECTOR MAY ISSUE AN ORDER REQUIRING COMPLIANCE EITHER
12 IMMEDIATELY OR WITHIN A STATED PERIOD OF TIME.
13 B. ACOMPLIANCE ORDER SHALL STATE WITH REASONABLE SPECIFICITY THE
14 NATURE OF THE VIOLATION, ATIME FOR COMPLIANCE, IF APPLICABLE, AND THE
15 RIGHT TO AHEARING.
16 C. THE DIRECTOR SHALL TRANSMIT THE COMPLIANCE ORDER TO THE ALLEGED
17 VIOLATOR EITHER BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, OR BY HAND
18 DELIVERY.
19 D. AT THE DIRECTOR'S REQUEST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY FILE AN
20 ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO ENFORCE ORDERS ISSUED UNDER THIS SECTION AFTER
21 THE ORDER BECOMES FINAL. THE ACTION SHALL BE FILED I~SUPERIOR COURT IN
22 THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OCCURRED OR IN WHICH THE
23 DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE.
24 27-1023. Enforcement action on reclamation plan approval
25 A. THE DIRECTOR MAY SUSPEND, AMEND, WITHDRAW, IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON
26 OR REVOKE ARECLAMATION PLAN APPROVAL IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE
27 FACILITY IS IN VIOLATION OF ANY RULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER.
28 B. ANY ACTION TAKEN UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE
29 REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE 41, CHAPTER 6.
30 27-1024. Injunctive relief; civil penalties
31 A. IF THE DIRECTOR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A PERSON IS VIOLATING
32 THIS CHAPTER, ARULE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER OR THAT A PERSON IS
33 CAUSING AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL DANGER TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR TO THE
34 ENVIRONMENT, THE DIRECTOR, THROUGH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, MAY REQUEST A
35 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, A PERMANENT
36 INJUNCTION OR ANY OTHER RELIEF NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH OR
37 THE ENVIRONMENT, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE PERSON HAS REQUESTED A
38 HEARING.
39 B. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS CHAPTER OR A RULE, ORDER OR
40 RECLAMATION PLAN APPROVAL ADOPTED OR ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER IS
41 SUBJECT TO ACIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH
42 DAY OF VIOLATION, NOT TO EXCEED FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH
43 VIOLATION. AT THE DIRECTOR'S REQUEST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL FILE AN
44 ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO RECOVER CIVIL PENALTIES AS PRESCRIBED BY THIS
45 SECTION.
46 C. AN ACTION FILED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE BROUGHT IN SUPERIOR
47 COURT IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OCCURRED OR IN WHICH
48 THE DEPARTMENT MAINTAINS AN OFFICE.
-15-
1 27-1025. Agency order; appeal
2 A.'="AN ORDER ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE IS
3 FINAL UNLESS THE DEFENDANT APPEALS THE ORDER PURSUANT TO TITLE 41, CHAPTER
4 6 WITHIN THIRTY DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER.
5 B. AFINAL AGENCY ORDER IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
6 TITLE 12, CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 6.
7 27-1026. Violation; classification
8 A. BEGINNING ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RULES ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
9 PURSUANT TO THIS CHAPTER, AN OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN EXPLORATION OPERATION
10 OR MINING UNIT SHALL NOT:
11 1. CAUSE A SURFACE DISTURBANCE AT AN EXPLORATION OPERATION OR NEW
12 MINING UNIT WITHOUT A RECLAMATION PLAN OR NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY THIS
13 CHAPTER.
14 2. FAIL OR REFUSE TO CONDUCT RECLAMATION ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF
15 AN APPROVED RECLAMATION PLAN.
16 B. A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS SECTION IS GUILTY OF ACLASS 2
17 MISDEMEANOR.
18 Sec. 2. ReqUirements for enactment
19 Pursuant to article IX, section 22, Constitution of Arizona, this
20 act is effective only on the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of
21 the members of each house of the legislature and is effe~tive immediately
22 on the signature of the governor or, if the governor vetoes this act, on
23 the SUbsequent affirmative vote of at least three-fourths of the members
24 of each house of the Legislature.
-16-
ARIZONA STATE SENATE
M E M 0
December 16, 1993
To: MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE
ON MINED LAND RECLAMATION
From: SUSAN MCJUNKIN, Legislative Research Analyst
Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Committee
Re: Suggested Changes to Mined Land Reclamation Bill Draft - #0529
SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES
1) Include "Bad Actor" prOV1Slons which will prohibit approval of a
mined land reclamation plan submitted by a mine owner or operator who has
a poor record of criminal and/or civil violations relating to that person's
mining operations (* This is similar to the certificate of disclosure of
violations required by ADEQ.)
2) Provide for separate legislation for the plan fee provisions for the
Mined Land Reclamation program to avoid Proposition 108 requirements for
the program itself (Proposition 108 requires at least a 2/3 vote of each
house for passage and the makes the bill effective upon the signature of
the Governor.) -
3) Eliminate state lands from the provisions of the reclamation program
since the State Land Department already administers and enforces
reclamation of mining operations on state lands. The Land Department would
continue to coordinate with state and federal agencies on reclamation plan
approval for mining operations that are on both public and private land.
TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES
4) Move back the date by which the administering agency must adopt rules
for the Mined Land Reclamation Program from December 31, 1995 to
July 1, 1996.
5) Conform the time frames provided for reclamation plan filing, approval
and changes to allow the administering agency a longer period of time to
act on an application or submittal.
sm ATTACHMENT B
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY COMMITTEE ON
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
Minutes of Meeting
Thursday, December 16, 1993
Senate Hearing Room 2 - 2:00 p.m.
Cochairman Buster called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. after the conclusion
of the subcommittee meeting, and roll call was taken. See attached sheet for
other attendees.
Members Present
Representative Conner
Representative Kaites
Representative Brown
Representative Clark
Senator Chesley
Senator Arzberger
Senator Hardt
Representative Keegan, Cochairman
Senator Buster, Cochairman
Members Excused
Senator Phill ips
Susan McJunkin
Dan Shein
Susan McJunkin, Senate Research Analyst, explainEd that the subcommittee
recommended a proposal that was submitted at its last meeting and redrafted by
Legislative Council (filed with original minutes). She provided an overview of
the proposal and substantive changes recommended by the subcommittee (filed with
original minutes).
Jim Bush, representing Arizona Mining Association, offered to answer any
questions the Committee might have. Representative Conner and Senator Chesley
commented on the advantages of deleting the provision mandating the Department
of Mines and Mineral Resources (DMMR) to administer and enforce a State Mined
Land Reclamation Program, with consideration of the appropriate department to
fulfill this responsibility to be given during the regular legislative process.
Mr. Bush contended that the program could appropriately be administered and
enforced through DMMR but added that it would not be objectionable to the Arizona
Mining Association that the determination be made at a later time.
After discussion raised by Senator Hardt pertaining to the references in the
proposed legislation to DMMR, Senator Buster indicated that the bill could
reflect a blank line rather than refer to a particular agency.
Representative Conner moved that the Committee recommend to the
Legislature the proposed Mined Land Reclamation Program with the suggested
changes, i ncl udi ng the future determi nat i on of the admi ni strati ve and
enforcement agency for the program.
Bob Beatson, Di rector, Ari zona League of Conservation Voters, out1i ned the
provisions included in the proposal submitted by the League and the Sierra Club
(filed with original minutes). He explained that the proposed legislation is an
ATT.L\CHMENT C
December 16, 1993
Page 2
MINUTES OF JOINT LEGISLATIVE STUDY
COMMITTEE ON MINEO LAND RECLAMATION
environmentar"bill that d~als with reclamation and is based on legislation
recently enacted in New Mexico, a state with mining conditions that closely
approximate those in Arizona.
Raena Honan, representing Sierra Club, offered a side-by-side comparison of the
proposal discussed by Mr. Beatson and the proposal endorsed by the mining
industry and recommended by the subcommittee (filed with original minutes).
Ms. Honan suggested that the most appropriate place for the reclamation function
is within the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), particularly
since that agency routinely handles the permitting process for the mines. She
emphasized the need to consolidate and coordinate the functions of ADEQ rather
than create a new level of government. However, Ms. Honan contended that there
is no compelling reason to act immediately and recommended that the discussions
continue.
Larry Bauer, Deputy State Director for Mineral Resources, U.S. Bureau of Land
Management, commented that the Federal mining law is currently under reform,
noting that bills recently passed by both the U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives include provisions to establish abandoned mine reclamation funds.
He explained that a state will not receive any of those Federal funds without
having its own reclamation program in place. Mr. Bauer provided information
pertaining to the significant drop in the number of active claims in the State
as a result of the implementation of Federal mining claim fees (filed with
original minutes). He suggested the Committee consider the ramifications of
funding the proposed reclamation program based on the number of mining claims.
Douglas Martin, State Mine Inspector, advocated that existing Federal and State
agencies coordinate their present mining reclamation activities as opposed to
creating an entirely new agency (handout filed with original minutes).
David Kimball, Chairman of Arizona Chamber of Commerce Environment Committee,
stated that the mining industry in New Mexico did not support the bill enacted
in that State. He also maintained that the bill presented by the Arizona League
of Conservation Voters and the Sierra Club is not consistent with the New Mexico
program, particularly with the addition of the unsuitability provision. He
observed that New Mexico's environmental programs are quite different from those
in Arizona. Mr. Kimball noted that Arizona has ·one of the most protective
groundwater programs in the Nation and added that another major environmental
overlay program would result in significant duplication.
The motion CARRIED by voice vote.
The meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m.
submitted, c.~
Jan~e C. Stell, Committee Secretary
(Attachments and tapes are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate.)
JAi! i L. { /(.J 19 S
~: 00 /1'....
7:~ ~ oo--A H .
, \
s.oJf
'-\ '-\
~6;i~ fJ1dfLTlti
Ctf@?/( Wtf-lA